Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
Rjpieces: And people wonder why the US and Israel are steadfast allies. This is how you deal with terrorists.
...if you want never-ending carnage, sure.
Being incapable to recognize that the decisive factors in the fight against terrorism are not military has always been a recipe for disaster. The blatant lack of success of this strategy is telling. To those with eyes to see, at last.
Sjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1098 times:
"But the US funded Al Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin, not to mention Saddam. "
Yes, your point? Those horrendous mistakes do not nullify the need to fight terrorism now.
"I think a lot of people are surprised - the war was meant to be won 10 months ago. "
And everyone knows that it's not... yay for you, you're brilliant, you pointed out the obvious that Bushy would rather not hear... but the terrorism in Iraq must be combatted in order to give the country a shot at functional democracy, whether someone declared 'victory' or not.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1096 times:
"the war was meant to be won 10 months ago."
I never said it was. My point is that this isnt a war crime because on my view all wars are crime. They can be legitmate, illegitimate, they can kill 100 people or 100 000 people. They can resuce people from dictators, they can attack terrorists or they can grab land but at the end of the day it is war and these situations arent surprising.
You will never a clean safe war where no one gets hurt and this isnt just my view on iraq, if tomorrow there is a terrorist outrage while I would condemm it it would be as a result of this war that America and its allies are in.
This war on terror with its many different faces will take years and anyone thinking that every civilian in the world will never die from it is frankly living in cloud cuckoo land.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
NWA742: Explain to us what's better then, Klaus. You really think negotiating or changing foreign policies is enough to keep those assholes from hating us?
The only way to stop them from hating us and attempting to kill us is------ to kill them before they kill us. 9/11 was the wake-up call for America to realize this fact.
You´re demanding a simplistic answer to a complex problem. And that simple answer does not exist. "They hate us... so kill more of them, maybe that will help!" is obviously not the answer.
Successful strategies have been discussed many times before. And they´ve been applied with success as well.
Hardcore terrorist cells are usually unreachable. Their undercover operations need to be fought with the full force of combined police, intelligence agencies and rarely also military means.
The primary long-term part of the fight is based on denying the terrorist cells the means to support and replenish themselves. External pressure apparently helps very little with that, quite the contrary: It invigorates the civilian support base of the active members. As long as there is a functioning support infrastructure, the active cells can (and probably will) live forever, replenishing themselves whenever a military strike has taken out some of their members with fresh recruits.
The basis of every terrorist movement is its perceived legitimacy in its civilian support base. The only successful way to win the fight is to undermine the terrorist´s credibility among their active and potential supporters. This, of course, requires an open and credible approach to those people. Marching into their territory and loudly telling them what they have to think or believe is not terribly constructive.
"Winning the hearts and minds" is seen as an optional flourish at the side of the greater struggle by many (especially americans, apparently). But as much as it doesn´t involve heavy artillery and flashy news coverage, it is the only way the fight can actually be won in the longer run. There are no shortcuts and no cheap substitutes.
Yes, it involves actually listening to the people you´re dealing with; Not just parading your presumed superiority before them. But there´s just no other way.
Solarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1004 times:
Oh thats real humane man... killing innocent civilians.... sounds alot like something else you and I have debated before...***IDF***
How come I don't see you condemning the killing of civilians when insurgents slaughter innocent Iraqis with car bombs? Yet when the Americans bomb a house full of these terrorists, we have people like you crying a river about it. Strange....
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 997 times:
Why don't people realize that sometimes you have to choose between two evils...and you pick the lesser one? Those terrorists would have killed many more women and children than that raid did. We supported Saddam against Iran because Iran was a greater threat. We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets because a superpower with thousands of nukes is a much bigger threat than the Mujahadeen was at that point. We fought with the Soviets against Hitler because Hitler was a far greater threat to our security than the Soviets were. It's logic.