The war on terrorism is unwinnable - Page 2

Atahualpa · June 24, 2003, 18:28

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 · June 24, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

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 · June 24, 2003, 18:40

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/AS...913522-0323362

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

BeBro · June 24, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:18

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
RAF or cosa nostra?

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

Az · June 24, 2003, 19:23

the royal airforce is dead?

BeBro · June 24, 2003, 19:24

oedo · June 24, 2003, 19:29

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?

BeBro · June 24, 2003, 19:31

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

St Leo · June 24, 2003, 19:33

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:34

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:34

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

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 · June 24, 2003, 19:39

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

TCO · June 24, 2003, 19:39

DGA up, CDA up, chlorides negative. pH constant.

What is the casualty? What are the ship's immediate actions. what are your actions as ELT? Outline (broadly) some of the supplemental actions. what calculations would you perform if I had given you unmbers to go with today's and yesterday's chemistry?

BeBro · June 24, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
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.?

I´d say you can easily say it is a criminal org when it hasn´t primarily political goals.

The rest is a bit more difficult, since it depends a lot on your personal POV. We discussed similar problem´s in Diss´thread about "terrorism as legitimate form of warfare".

Sure one can always claim he´s not a terrorist, but a freedom fighter. However, in case of Al Quaeda they hardly can claim that, since the US wasn´t present as occupying force in the ME before this spring. All they do is whining about evil US supporting Israel. Oh, and they also whine about evil US supporting Arab "traitors" like Egypt or Jordan. While it can much be said about those states, they are certainly not anti-Arabic. So their "crime" in OBL´s eyes is that they are not fundamentalist enough. And of course evil US is also supporting Saudi Arabia (I hope they don´t do it much longer), where little OBL wanted to be something more than the holy man in the mountains.

So all their "freedom-fighting" looks like a struggle for personal power combined with religious idiocy, but not for the freedom of the masses. The sad thing is that so many Arabic people seem to believe he´s doing this all for a greater good. If OBL wanted freedom, he had the influence to implement it with his friends, the Taleban, as long they were in power in Afghanistan. Seems he didn´t care much about freedom there.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
those who are with us, and those who are against us, of course.

When were you replaced by a Dubya clone?

Az · June 25, 2003, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

When were you replaced by a Dubya clone?

got you scared, huh?

Ted Striker · June 25, 2003, 01:23

BS

Coalition: bad azzes chasing these fools to the ends of the earth for as long as it takes

Al Queda: p ussies

Berzerker · June 25, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

But what can we do in the meantime?

Kick back, have a beer, and watch baseball.

Dis · June 25, 2003, 03:53

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
DGA up, CDA up, chlorides negative. pH constant.

What is the casualty? What are the ship's immediate actions. what are your actions as ELT? Outline (broadly) some of the supplemental actions. what calculations would you perform if I had given you unmbers to go with today's and yesterday's chemistry?

err I was not expecting that.

gaseous activity and charged disk activity up? Looks like a fuel element failure.

My actions? run screaming naked off the side of the ship- you sub guys can't do that

.

supplemental actions- find some nice carribean island with topless beaches and live life to the fullest.

my only calculations would be how many beers I have before I bang some chick.

Now back to the thread at hand- whatever that is.

Ecthy · June 25, 2003, 03:55

The goal of the WOT is to keep terrorism out of the US / the west, not to hunt down every single terrorist.

Simple as that, and therefore it is winnable, in a way.

Dis · June 25, 2003, 04:05

well I do think we can reduce the threat level to a reasonable level.

At least for a while.

Whether that sticks or not is up in the air.

Ecthy · June 25, 2003, 04:12

the US has an advantage in comparison with Israel, you guys donät have the guys next door

unless the Canadians or the Texans become terrorists

Mexicans wouldn't be a problem since that border can be closed. somewhat. er. never mind.

Dis · June 25, 2003, 04:21

What I find interesting is the die down in domestic terrorism.

Although I feel the goverment overblown the threat of domestic terrorists in the first place.

I think in reality it was just a few kooks after all. Sure there are a lot of militias, but 99.9% of those guys will never do anything.

The Anthrax probably was domestic- but in terms of death toll, wasn't too bad. It was more of a fear spreading tool.

And you had Oklahoma City bombing. Unibomber maybe. Other than that, what have we had? Eric Rudolph. He wasn't that much of a menace.

Ecthy · June 25, 2003, 04:43

your school shootings are probably worse threats to your society than your domestic terrorists.

west germany eliminated all of those in the 70s. some in the 90s. all dead or in prison now