How to win the War on Terrorism

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

It's not just "some" people. An enormous number of people are grossly dissatisfied with American foreign policies, and this is where support for terrorism (or at least indirect support) comes from. If you want to allow such a trend to continue, I say it's a terrible strategic decision.

It is not for someone else to dictate to the US how to conduct it's affaris, and the real truth is most of the "distatisfaction" comes from an extremly effective propaganda campaign carried out in many Muslim nations.
Before you scoff, take a look into this, it is well founded.
Most of their "grivences" are pure bull sh1t.

Because the USA is indeed responsible for some of the problems that they have.

Wrong again, but at least your consistant.
The US is not controling any muslim government, it may do buisness with them but it doesn't control anything.
Unless your a left wing idiot spewwing conspracey theoris, you know this as fact.

Because the USA indeed is starving babies in Iraq.
I know that Saddam doesn't care about his people either, but America certainly isn't helping with those sanctions. With the sanctions in place, America is in essence an accomplice to Saddam, and which accomplice would Arabs want to blame? An Arab leader? Or rich foreigners? After all, they all have a part in this.

The solution is simple.
Attack or leave, sanctions are pointless.

If they did that, the Americans would listen politely, nod, and move on to more important matters, like impeaching Clinton for his Monica Lewinsky affair, in typical American fashion. US foreign policies in the Middle East haven't changed no matter how many ways Arabs have attempted to voice their concerns.
Which is exactly why they're resorting to other means.

Bullsh1t.
More excuses for inhuman action.
"They don't listen, boo hoo hoo, adul, go blow up a toddler, that will make it better!"

He doesn't. But America has the responsibility to choose its allies wisely, especially if it wants to play fair and "fight for freedom" as it claims it does.

Sorry friend, the world's problems aern't the USA's problems, unless they directly effect the USA.
We aern'y the police of the world, despite several stupid presidents who tried to make us this.

America can go ahead and make whatever foreign policies decisions that it wants, pretending that the rest of the world would behave like sheep. I don't think the results would be pretty.

If things continue as is, the world is setting up a situation where the US will wave all out war, and that won't be the "kid gloves" currently in use, war with smart bombs and trying to avoid all out losses.
It will be "if the world wants to fight dirty, we will also".
That's not as absurd as you may think, every 9/11 brings it closer, and the real losers in such a war will be everybody, but the "rest of the world" won't be here for the end.
That's the world terrorism brings, and appeasement did exactly that in the past, brought on world war.

I thought America was supposed to represent freedom and justice? Or is it true that American citizens are worth more than non-Americans?

Go argue semantics with someone who cares, I'm interested in protecting me and mine, the rest can go hang.

So severing ties would actually help those women get rights. Right right.

Nothing short of all out invasion and replacement of those medival jerks would.
But they can have their world, and we would have ours.

See above point on Saudi Arabia.

You see it.
It isn't the US's job to correct the world's injustice, it's time that people understood they need to fend for themselves.
You want to help them?
Knock yourself out, but not with MY MONEY.

Don't you want to find out why they want to kill you, so that there won't be any more from where they came from?
If you really don't want to know, I say that's bad tactics.

I already know why.
They make it very clear.

Nuke Mecca indeed!
To quote something from a while back, "if America continues acting in the way it does, it'll soon lose all its allies."
How true.

What "allies' would that be?

[Boris Godunov]

*Ahem*

The US isn't responsible in some instances? Ha!

Iran?

Here we propped up an unpopular ruler because we thought it was in our national interests. Religious extremists use this to spark anti-American zealotry, overthrow the shah and install a theocratic, anti-American regime. Our fault.

Iraq?

Here, in response to our stupidity in Iran, we pump millions of $$ and arms into an autocratic dictator with a penchant for genocide. We then act all shocked when he turns around and invades Kuwait with the army we financed.

Pre-Taliban Afghanistan?

We MADE the Taliban! Once again, creating our own worst messes. We pumped $$ and arms into the Taliban, because we always think the enemy of our enemy (Soviets) is our friend.

The U.S. is constantly shooting itself in the foot by meddling in the affairs of Muslim nations, and that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here in terms of short-sighted foreign policy. We've made ourselves unpopular with Muslim countries on our own.

[Chris 62]

Your living in a dream world Boris, saying the same nonsense over and over again.

We didn't quip Saddam, he used RUSSIAN equipment, and always did.
That's the propaganda nonsense I mentioned.

We didn't "prop up" the shah, he was put in power by Britain, instead of a fanatic pro-nazi in the 1940s.
And Iran has been so much better under Islamic hardliners, hasn't it?

They had their freedoms removed one by one by the regime that replaced the "evil" shah.

This is exactly the kind of stupidity I constantly see in these threads, blame for the "evil" US, and zero proof to back it up.

In fact Boris, take a look at this:

http://www.iraniancivilrights.com/main2.htm

This is what happened after the "US puppet" shah was forced out.
If your against US support of the Shah, then your for murder of homosexuals, Zero rights for women, no rights in labor, the list of human rights abuses is endless.

And people like YOU favor pandering to these morons.

[DinoDoc]

Re the claim that the IRA bombed it way to the peace table: That seems like sophistry to me considering the fact that the British have always been willing to talk to the IRA, but they are not today anymore willing to make concessions to terrorism than they ever have been. The current crop of IRA terrorists have gained nothing more through the use of such tactics than did Michael Collins.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: The depths to which people go to avoid understanding.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They is a great difference between the two, yes. Palestinian terror has killed maybe as many as 5,000 Israelis in 50 years. The US blockade of Iraq has killed almost a million in 12 years. Not the difference of which you were thinking, however.

You're losing sight of the reason for the blockade, Hussein's unceasing efforts to conceal his various, still ongoing, NBC weapons programs. Muslims should not forget the fact that the only people who have been victims of his NBC weapons have been Muslims.

If you're going to compare numbers, you should compare the number who have died due to the blockade to the number he murdered in both Iran and Iraq.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It is not for someone else to dictate to the US how to conduct it's affaris, and the real truth is most of the "distatisfaction" comes from an extremly effective propaganda campaign carried out in many Muslim nations.
Before you scoff, take a look into this, it is well founded.
Most of their "grivences" are pure bull sh1t.

Wrong. Propaganda campaigns carried out by governments are merely one part of the general anti-American atmosphere in the ME.

Wrong again, but at least your consistant.
The US is not controling any muslim government, it may do buisness with them but it doesn't control anything.
Unless your a left wing idiot spewwing conspracey theoris, you know this as fact.

The US doesn't directly control any Muslim government, but US policies nevertheless influence affairs in the ME to an enormous extent, due to the political and economic clout of the US.

The solution is simple.
Attack or leave, sanctions are pointless.

Attacking is as pointless as sanctions, and has the added bonus of being even more destructive and inhumane.
I'm not against the use of force when all other means fail, but frankly, are the only possible American foreign policies isolation, sanction, and invasion? It certainly seems that way.

Bullsh1t.
More excuses for inhuman action.
"They don't listen, boo hoo hoo, adul, go blow up a toddler, that will make it better!"

The American response isn't any better.
Besides, I'm not justifying murder either. I'm saying: find out their motives and solve the problems from there, don't grab a gun and start firing back at the closest moving thing!

Sorry friend, the world's problems aern't the USA's problems, unless they directly effect the USA.
We aern'y the police of the world, despite several stupid presidents who tried to make us this.

If so then stop meddling in the world's affairs like the world's your private little zoo, and the world will be thankful for it.

If things continue as is, the world is setting up a situation where the US will wave all out war, and that won't be the "kid gloves" currently in use, war with smart bombs and trying to avoid all out losses.

I hope it won't come to that. But it seems that America will start it.

It will be "if the world wants to fight dirty, we will also".
That's not as absurd as you may think, every 9/11 brings it closer, and the real losers in such a war will be everybody, but the "rest of the world" won't be here for the end.

Contrary to what you might think, 9/11 isn't the start of it. It's a retaliatory act. I'm not saying it's therefore justified, but that's what it is, and America must realize that if it wants to solve the terrorism problem.

That's the world terrorism brings, and appeasement did exactly that in the past, brought on world war.

If the Allies had attempted to help the Germans in the 1920's and not punish them instead, WW2 might well have been averted. But the Allies were intent on "getting back at them", and look what happened.... and the Allies certainly haven't learnt their lesson.

Go argue semantics with someone who cares, I'm interested in protecting me and mine, the rest can go hang.

what you're doing certainly isn't protecting thee and thine. It's creating more people who want to kill thee and thine.

Nothing short of all out invasion and replacement of those medival jerks would.
But they can have their world, and we would have ours.

We live on the same world, try to get used to that. America's mistake has been to pretend that New York and Mecca are on different planets. Don't you think you should wake up to reality already?

You see it.
It isn't the US's job to correct the world's injustice, it's time that people understood they need to fend for themselves.
You want to help them?
Knock yourself out, but not with MY MONEY.

Fine then. America should become isolationist right away. I don't mind.

I already know why.
They make it very clear.

Why do you think they want to kill you? Because they consulted an Ouija board, is that it?

What "allies' would that be?

Maybe you'll have only Britain left in the end. How sad.

[ranskaldan]

A little play

Saddam: I'm a rogue, see? I've invaded Kuwait and I'll be a nuisance to the world, especially the USA!

America: stop being so bad or, or, or we'll starve your people!!

Saddam: haha, I could care less.

America: (twiddling thumbs)
(meanwhile, a lot of Iraqis die.)

Saddam: (to servant) get me more foam for my bubble bath.

America: Too bad the Iraqis are dying like that! It's all Saddam's fault! Let's get his people to starve even more, and hope that Saddam gives a damn!

Saddam: (to his people) Look, America's starving you!!!

Iraqis: (dying) Argh! It's true!

Arabs in ME: Iraqis are being murdered by America!

(Terrorist act occurs.)

America: We didn't see this coming! Boohoohoo! Our strategic thinking has been perfect! It's not fair!

(later, somewhere in the future after Afghanistan has been steamrolled)
America: GRRRRR!!!!! Iraq is bad! Let's bomb them!!!

Iraqis: Look! American bombs are falling out of the sky!

America: Haha! Now the Iraqis will like us and they won't attack us any more!!

Iraqis: America is even worse than we thought!

..... (to be continued perhaps, ending in a World War which the Americans have no idea how they helped to start.)

the end

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Wrong. Propaganda campaigns carried out by governments are merely one part of the general anti-American atmosphere in the ME.

The MAIN part.

The US doesn't directly control any Muslim government, but US policies nevertheless influence affairs in the ME to an enormous extent, due to the political and economic clout of the US.

Finally, someone who says they aern't US puppets.
As for influence, it's extremly limited, the muslim world does what it wants.
Our "influence" is basically limited to preventing them from destroying Israel, out side of that, not much.

Attacking is as pointless as sanctions, and has the added bonus of being even more destructive and inhumane.
I'm not against the use of force when all other means fail, but frankly, are the only possible American foreign policies isolation, sanction, and invasion? It certainly seems that way.

Invasion is a waste of time, sanctions are also, they can rot is the only sane course.
Europe can handle this problem.

The American response isn't any better.
Besides, I'm not justifying murder either. I'm saying: find out their motives and solve the problems from there, don't grab a gun and start firing back at the closest moving thing!

Clinton was trigger happy, Bush isn't, he limited attacks mostly to identifiable targets.
Our responce has been quite effective, despite a lot of blowhard talk, El Quieda has done nothing since their big splash.

If so then stop meddling in the world's affairs like the world's your private little zoo, and the world will be thankful for it.

If you'd stop making it up you go along, I'd be thankful.
Name specific times and places of this "meddling", if you can get past rumor, don't waste my time.
I have no intention of defending your imaginary claims.
Put finger to keyborad and write out this "meddling".
And let me tell you something, Europe did far more "meddling", in a far more nonproductive way then the US ever did, unless you deny colonialism.

I hope it won't come to that. But it seems that America will start it.

If the US keeps getting attacked, it will happen.
Count on it.

Contrary to what you might think, 9/11 isn't the start of it. It's a retaliatory act. I'm not saying it's therefore justified, but that's what it is, and America must realize that if it wants to solve the terrorism problem.

It's retaliation in the mind of a sick little man who may well be dead, but he will have lots of company before long.

If the Allies had attempted to help the Germans in the 1920's and not punish them instead, WW2 might well have been averted. But the Allies were intent on "getting back at them", and look what happened.... and the Allies certainly haven't learnt their lesson.

We didn't fight a world war vs Islam, so such a comparison is pointless.
Add to it that most muslim states are incredibly backwards, a rise to Germany's level is unlikely unless they change internally in a bog way, and that is extremly unlikely.

what you're doing certainly isn't protecting thee and thine. It's creating more people who want to kill thee and thine.

Gitmo is loaded with a clown brigade that thought it was untouchable in Afghanistan, that we couldn't get at them.
Surprise, surprise, we sure did.
The only people who think the Afghan war is a waste of time are the same people who would appease terror and say the only way to end it is to give in to it...oh, I forgot, that's you.

We live on the same world, try to get used to that. America's mistake has been to pretend that New York and Mecca are on different planets. Don't you think you should wake up to reality already?

I live in the real world pally, you obviously don't.
Someone punches me in the face I don't ask them why, hoping they won't do it again.
I knock em on their ass.
The same thing applies with terror, you all have this dopey notion that it's unstoppable, well, guess again, it is stoppable, as we are now seeing it stopped.
Humans are an odd lot, some will fight till the end, most take the safe path, the same is true here, you are letting a relitive handful of fanatics (say 40,000 as a round number) dictate to billions.
How moronic is that?

Fine then. America should become isolationist right away. I don't mind.

Neither do I, the only reason it isn't is because Europe made a butch of the world the last time we tried it.

Why do you think they want to kill you? Because they consulted an Ouija board, is that it?

No, becuase their leaders, both religious and in government tell them we are the enemy.
So simple even you can grasp it.

Maybe you'll have only Britain left in the end. How sad.

And Canada, Mexico, most of South America, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, The Phillipennes, The Russian confederation, South Korea.......Seems only Europe will be up sh1t's creek in that scenario.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The MAIN part.

Finally, someone who says they aern't US puppets.
As for influence, it's extremly limited, the muslim world does what it wants.
Our "influence" is basically limited to preventing them from destroying Israel, out side of that, not much.

Actually, they are US allies, which is almost equivalent to US puppets.

Invasion is a waste of time, sanctions are also, they can rot is the only sane course.
Europe can handle this problem.

This "they can rot" attitude, coupled with invasion and sanction, is pretty much why America is so universally loathed.

Clinton was trigger happy, Bush isn't, he limited attacks mostly to identifiable targets.
Our responce has been quite effective, despite a lot of blowhard talk, El Quieda has done nothing since their big splash.

It's been less than a year. There's more than a year separating the Cole Attack and Sept 11 anyway.
Besides, Al Qaeda (which is how it's spelled) may be in shards, but as they say, the spirit lives on and grows stronger.

If you'd stop making it up you go along, I'd be thankful.
Name specific times and places of this "meddling", if you can get past rumor, don't waste my time
I have no intention of defending your imaginary claims.
Put finfer to keyborad and write out this "meddling".

Support for Israel for instance is a fair amount of meddling. Sanctions on Cuba, on Iraq, and on other countries the US doesn't like. Its strange habit of training and supporting dictators and terrorists who then turns against it. (Saddam comes to mind) All the political intrigue, amphibious assaults, support for one group or another, etc etc in South America. The fiasco of Vietnam.
And don't get me started on the places that America should have gotten involved but didn't. Like Kyoto.
They don't call America the International Policeman for nothing. I call it the International Rogue.

let me tell you something, Europe did far more "meddling", in a far more nonproductive way then the US ever did, unless you deny colonialism.
If the US keeps getting attacked, it will happen.
Count on it.

So the USA is following Europe in the footsteps of colonialism? How nice.

We didn't fight a world war vs Islam, so such a comparison is pointless.
Add to it that most muslim states are incredibly backwards, a rise to Germany's level is unlikely unless they change internally in a bog way, and that is extremly unlikely.

Apparently you have no idea what Germany was like in the 1920's.
It was like the ME today: poor, angry, and extremist. The Allies were contributors, and they reaped what they sowed.

I share your joy.

Gitmo is loaded with a clown brigade that thought it was untouchable in Afghanistan, that we couldn't get at them.
Surprise, surprise, we sure did.
The only people who think the Afghan war is a waste of time are the same people who would appease terror and say the only way to end it is to give in to it...oh, I forgot, that's you.

Straw man argument.
I'm not against force if there's no other way that could possibly work.
Unfortunately, in the vast wide world, there are many ways that are slower and more subtle but will work a lot better.

I live in the real world pally, you obviously don't.
Someone punches me in the face I don't ask them why, hoping they won't do it again.
I knock em on their ass.

Unfortunately, that may work for interpersonal relationships, but certainly not for international relationships.
If a mosquito bites you, you probably should find where they breed, not attempt to swat every single one of the several thousand that approaches.

The same thing applies with terror, you all have this dopey notion that it's unstoppable, well, guess again, it is stoppable, as we are now seeing it stopped.

If you think it's stopped like that, then you're more naive than I thought.

Humans are an odd lot, some will fight till the end, most take the safe path, the same is true here, you are letting a relitive handful of fanatics (say 40,000 as a round number) dictate to billions.
How moronic is that?

Yes, and America, so far, has been happily encouraging everyone to fight to the end.
A very wise path.

Neither do I, the only reason it isn't is because Europe made a butch of the world the last time we tried it.

Mmm, and now you're out meddling.

No, becuase their leaders, both religious and in government tell them we are the enemy.
So simple even you can grasp it.

Mmmm, and you're sitting aside and allowing it to happen, right?

And Canada, Mexico, most of South America, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, The Phillipennes, The Russian confederation, South Korea.......Seems only Europe will be up sh1t's creek in that scenario.

Don't be so confident. Overconfidence led to Sept 11.

[notyoueither]

What was the view for the man in the street of the Shah's Iran?

What is the view for the man in the street of Saudi Arabia?

I'm pretty sure I know what the view is for the man in the street of Bagdad.

It makes a certain amount of sense to adjust your behaviour if your behaviour is starting bar brawls.

On the other hand... If you want to support your friend, say an Israeli, and 'they' don't like it... then it is not unreasonable for you to stand up and be counted for your friend. Reasonable people will understand that.

People should distinguish between supporting Israel and supporting the Shah and the Saudi royal family. They are very different things, although a lot of writers would not want you to think so.

When the US supports Israel they are supporting a friend. Reasonable muslims will see that. They won't like it, but they won't go rabid over it. They didn't in the 50's, or 60's or 70's or 80's. It was very late in the 90's that Israel was linked to other issues.

However, if in addition to supporting your friends you support oppressive regimes in muslim countries, then yes they are gonna start hating your guts. They'd start hating your guts even if you had no friends that you support. So the friend has nothing to do with it, and neither does Israel.

It would be good for people in the West to understand that Israel is not the same issue as American or European policy in muslim countries. No matter what some writers would have you believe.

[cia]

Perhaps my last post was misunderstood.
I said to take the terrorists and the other ME people at their word.
Do EXACTLY waht they ask for.
HOWEVER,
if there is another terrorisy incident against the American people respond in a clear and overwhelming manner totally out of proportion.
Everyone here admits terrorism against the US is due to their support of corrupt regimes in the ME. So why attack the US when the Saudi government is your enemy? No one answers this fundamental question.
The IRA didn't say that because the US is Britian's ally they should boms the US.
The analogy is like this: your neighbor has a little dog and big dog, and the little dog keeps attacking you, so you go over and kick the big dog because it's the little dog's friend. Figure out what will happen from there.
I am in complete agreement the US should not support dictators or oligarchies.
But if we don'tand are attacked anyway I suppose it's just a little revenge for all the injustices?
So just wait to see what revenge is. America excels at it.

[moomin]

Re: The depths to which people go to avoid understanding.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They is a great difference between the two, yes. Palestinian terror has killed maybe as many as 5,000 Israelis in 50 years. The US blockade of Iraq has killed almost a million in 12 years. Not the difference of which you were thinking, however.

Oh, please. The UN blockade has killed no one. Zero. Ziltch. Food and medical shipments are exempt from the blockade given that they are screened by UN personnel. Saddam won't comply, because he finds this demeaning. He's people dying are a result of his stroking his wounded ego, not of any UN sanctions.

Is this useful for Saddam? You bet. Is it more useful for the West? It depends on the alternative - if the option is dropping the sanctions then yes, if full-scale invation is what we're discussing then I'd agree that would be better still.

How would it harm the Pals if they gave up on terror? Not at all. How would it harm the US if it gave up on the Iraqi blockade? NY would go BOOM.

I'm always amazed to see how many of you Yanks think that mass destruction of your countrymen is something hilarious. I bet you had a party after 911 too?

Right, how's he gonna hit NYC? Oh yeah, give his weapons to Islamic extremists who hate him and are trying to topple him.

That's one option. Giving them the Bomb would insta-raise his stock from evil opponent of Allah's movement to Islam's thirtieenth profet overnight, so that would probably be a good investment for him, yes.

If for some reason that deal doesn't pan out, he can simply have some gentlemen of his own secret police run a simple delivery errand.

I believe you wouldn't support nuking Mekka during Ramadan claiming the Arabs brought that on themsleves by not listening to our grievances - and that they deserved it because of that.

Nuking Mecca during Ramadan would be an act of extremism which few of us support.

Indeed. And while there are nutcases who'd applaud that, we are not about to tell the Arabs they need to pander to the wishes of these nutcases lest they offend them and us and provoke us all into bombing them all back to basalt.

But I guess your line of thought is that the Arabs as a people are so darn primitive that we have to be real sensitive not to anger their nutcases, because that would offend them and might even provoke these primitives into terror - which would be our fault, because they're clerarly too inferior to help themseleves?

And yet, would that mean that the concerns that most of us have about Islam are unfounded? According to you, I guess that would.

Valid analogy only if either we complete missunderstood the status of women, democracy, freedom of religion and right to sexuality in the Muslim world, or the West is indeed conspiring behind their backs to bring them down. Which option do you belive?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cia
So why attack the US when the Saudi government is your enemy

Because it's easier?

And it furthers your intentions of rallying the muslim world behind your cause in a way that attacking the Saudis will not?

So of course America responds with bombs and continues to piss off muslims by backing the Saudis and other offensive regimes in the muslim world. That way you still have the oppression leading to support within your own community and you focus that anger on the only thing in your way.

Winning a revolutionary war is more than about winning battles. No one should have to tell Americans about that. The only problem with this revolution is that it does not stop for many borders. Kinda like... nevermind.

[cia]

The trick throughout history notyoueither, is to always drag a much larger opponent into your domestic squabble with the hope of destabilizing your opposition and rallying your forces. However, this doesn't succeed if you drag someone in with the power to blow your side away and the will to use it. It is only an effective strategy for the large power's tangential attention, not full.

[notyoueither]

Do you have the will to use it? Really?

OBL and other are betting not.

Besides, if there were another way, is it not a good thing to examine that way?

I am not advocating appeasement. Far from it. Muslim revolutions in... the Phillipines should be suppressed. Not many will care. Attacks on the West should be answered with force against those responsible and any countries that shield them.

But would it not be better if the people attacking the West lost support and sank into insignificance because the causes that fuel their fires are made obsolete?

It might hurt to stop supporting bad governments in the short term, but how much more will it hurt in the long term to continue propping them up?

The islamic world is telling the West 'enough!' It's been going on for 60 or 100 or 200 years. They now have the money and the fanatics to do something about it. We would do well to consider this.