Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and contrary to what DanS said, the US has no intention of toppling the dictatorship there. she has no interest in doing it. they dont care if you die by the thousands due to pakistani terrorism, unless, of course, you make them care.

Stop trolling you hairy hoplite. Of course the US cares and we'd like to see all terrorism cease we just helped Pakistan out because they agreed to give up the Taliban if we did so.

[Arrian]

Damnit, Oerdin, I put him on ignore for a reason.

-Arrian

[Oerdin]

Naw, he doesn't need to be ignored. He does need to be corrected every now and then though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Watching the news today , I just had to post this .

How many here actually believe that America can go against terrorists alone ?

LOTM - no of course we cant go it alone. WE are cooperting with nations around the world in the struggle against terrorism.


How many people think that war after war after war is the solution to the terrorism menace .



LOTM - The war against the Taliban was certainly necessary and has deprived AQ of its most important base. Whether the war on iraq helped is a matter of dispute - realistically its too soon to say. Will there be any more conventional wars against states? I hope not, but there may be situations where it will become necessary.

Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .

LOTM - I heard about terrorism directed against India before 9/11, but I have certainly paid much closer attention since 9/11. The taliban emerged out of Pakistani Jihadi groups, the same ones that have attacked India (and also attacked Christians, Shiites, and others in Pakistan) Your war IS our war, to a very great extent.


Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ?

LOTM - We need much more than army operations. We need police operations, intel, cutting off of funds to terrorist - and at the same time we need to transform the muslim world, to make it less amenbale to terrorism.


We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .


LOTM - India has never so far as I know, attacked the terrorist bases in Pakistan. The only conventional fighting India has done in the last 30 years against Pakistan has been along the LOC in Kashmir - the terrorist bases are much deeper within Pakistan. Given the balance of power in the region it would have been too dangerous. At some point the US needs to press Pakistan to eliminate the domestic Jihadi groups - with the threat that we will lean toward India and alter the balance if that is not done. For now we are busy elsewhere, and are willing to accept such cooperation as we have gotten from Pakistan.

In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone . You cannot enlist support by invading anyone . Only through a global consensus of all affected nations , not a Coalition of the Willing (or America's puppets) , can this be contained . And the faster Americans realize this , the better for them and the lives of theis troops .

LOTM - we will use as wide a consensus as possible. But when we must move with a narrower coalition we will.


Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

No one does, and I dont think there is anyplace in the world now where America is acting alone.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Food , we have no problems except in distribution (we , in fact , have the largest stored stocks in the world of rice and wheat) .

Well WE have the world's biggest stock of burger patties and fried chicken! If you had stocks of fries and biscuits we could do some business.

[GePap]

Europeans take terrorism very seriously. The first terrorist attack in te US was in 1993: almost all European contries by then had seen decades of terrorist acts: the French waged a very brutal war in Ageria, the Spaniards have the Basques, the UK North Ireland, Germany, italy and Greece left-wing groups. Compare secutiry at a European airport to that in the US..big difference. 9/11 did not make the us all of a sudden experts on terrorism..t did scare the utter bejesus out of Americans because of the unprecedented scope of the attack.

No state can end terrorism, all states could not end terrorism..a war on terrorism is like a war on war: terrorism is a political phenomenon, and any time in which you have one side or groups that whishes to transform the political landscape and is too weak to wage conventional war to do it we will have terrorism. Even if the US broke Al Qaeda and militant Islam ended, terrorism would continue. Reember the Tamil tigers and FARC are two of the largest terrorist orgs in the world and they have 0 to do with militant Islam.

The point is that each individual political problem need s to be solved in whicever ways are best, and that brings about the specific campaign of terrorism.

[Dr Strangelove]

You know, maybe we need a man like Genghis Khan right now!

[GePap]

Hardly...he wouldn't care much abount simple brigands having some "fun".

[Dr Strangelove]

He would if they tried to blow up Xanadu!

[St Leo]

That was Kublai Khan.

Genghiz is the dude who murdered everyone in Bukhara and stacked their skulls outsided the city because they took a bit long in surrendering.

[Ted Striker]

USA never said it was going to do it either alone or by military means only.

We will win this if it takes the next 100 years.

paiktis is a piece of sh1t by the way. Go shave your back you fuc king p ussy ass b1tch.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
We will win this if it takes the next 100 years.

If we are still fighting this in 100 years, then something went horrbily wrong somewhere.

The point is a "war on terrorism" is unwinnable (like a "war on war"). Now, a "war on Al qaeda", that we can win.

[Ted Striker]

I'm talking about Al Queda

And whatever dumbass organization decides the want to step up and get their asses kicked.

[Ted Striker]

Abu Sayeff is also on the list

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by St Leo
That was Kublai Khan.

Genghiz is the dude who murdered everyone in Bukhara and stacked their skulls outsided the city because they took a bit long in surrendering.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[aneeshm]

No trolling , please ! Yes , Europe has faced terrorism for a long time . That may be a reasom why many European nations do not support the war on terror , but would rather go for covert assassinations of terrorist leaders .

[Ted Striker]

Europe has never had an attack on the scale of 9/11 though

USA also conducts assassinations

Predator drones tracking down fools and blowing them
up

I'd give anything to be at the controls

Or just give me a 9 so I can pull the trigger

[Nubclear]

Can America finish terrorism alone?

No. Quite simply, America can't finish terrorism period.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If we are still fighting this in 100 years, then something went horrbily wrong somewhere.

The point is a "war on terrorism" is unwinnable (like a "war on war"). Now, a "war on Al qaeda", that we can win.

I agree that a war on terrorism is unwinnable - like a "war on crime" - something we will always have with us. A war on the Gambino crime family was winnable, however as you imply.

I think it was not mistaken to make it more generally a "war on all the linked Cosa Nostra rooted crime organizations in New YorK" rather than to focus on one organization.

Similarly what we have now is a war on Salafist-jihadist terrorism - a complex interlinked set of organizations and actors, not just the Al Qaeeda itself. For a variety of reasons, Bush could not be explicit about that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
No trolling , please ! Yes , Europe has faced terrorism for a long time . That may be a reasom why many European nations do not support the war on terror , but would rather go for covert assassinations of terrorist leaders .

I think theres some confusion here - what european nations do you think dont support the war on terrorism?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If we are still fighting this in 100 years, then something went horrbily wrong somewhere.

something went horribly wrong somewhere, even if al qaeeda disappears tomorrow.

See bernard lewis "what went wrong"

[BeBro]

Yesterday I saw a documentation about the war on terror - the main idea was that Al Qaeda isn´t just a terror org anymore, it is more a kind of ideology now that would work even without Bin Laden, since there are enough fundamentalist groups out there.

This cannot be won (if it can) purely militarily. Military action can be an option against those who are backed by regimes like the taleban, and are able to carry our large scale attacks, but it doesn´t help against a myriad of small terror cells.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yesterday I saw a documentation about the war on terror - the main idea was that Al Qaeda isn´t just a terror org anymore, it is more a kind of ideology now that would work even without Bin Laden, since there are enough fundamentalist groups out there.

This cannot be won (if it can) purely militarily. Military action can be an option against those who are backed by regimes like the taleban, and are able to carry our large scale attacks, but it doesn´t help against a myriad of small terror cells.

actually it was an ideology before Bin laden. AQ is itself rooted in the world of Pakistani jihadism, and the jihadi - deobandie madrassahs of Northwest pakistan. Which were associated with various pakistani groups that engaged in terrorist violence. Similarly Salafist violence was involved in the Algerian civil war, and a similar civil war in Egypt, which started with the Murder of Sadat. Bin ladens innovation was to take the war directly to the "infidels", instead of focusing on their "puppets". The ideological roots go far back as well, and include Sayed Qutb and the Egyptian Islamic brotherhoods, and other extremist interpreters of Wahabism.

[BeBro]

Well, they didn´t mean fundamentalism or islamistic terror didn´t exist before OBL, the film makers just had the thesis that "Al Quaeda" itself became a kind of popular symbol or icon within the Arab world. The idea was that now it doesn´t need some big masterminds like OBL anymore to form new terror cells, the process has its own dynamics so that many muslims with fundamentalist tendencies now will form a lot of small terror orgs not neccessarily connected to eachother, and without a common "program" - what they have in common is just the hate against all westerners and the will to kill them.

[DanS]

Yesterday I saw a documentation about the war on terror - the main idea was that Al Qaeda isn´t just a terror org anymore, it is more a kind of ideology now that would work even without Bin Laden, since there are enough fundamentalist groups out there.

We are mainly worried about organizations that can pull off complicated terrorist actions away from home base. This kind of capable organization isn't very common. The ideology has been around for quite a while, but it's only been in the last 10 years or so that a group has been able to become sufficiently organized to cause us much concern.

[BeBro]

But currently in Iraq small actions that take place everyday create enough problems, although a lot may be come from Saddam loyalists, not neccessarily fundamentalists. However, they said also in that movie that Iraq now is a kind of paradise for people who simply want to attack the evil Americans (kind of terror-tourism)...

[aneeshm]

The longer the US and the coalition stay in control of Iraq and Afghanistan , the more organised and powerful the resistance will become . For the first time , the terrorists have found sometning to shoot at on the ground , not the air .

[DanS]

However, they said also in that movie that Iraq now is a kind of paradise for people who simply want to attack the evil Americans (kind of terror-tourism)...

The underlying message is that the terrorists are free to attack our troops. The jihadists got creamed in the war and over time we will get the better of the exchange in this second wave. Our troops are strong and can deal with these guys. This is the flypaper theory.

Sabotage and attacks against non-collaborating civilians is an interesting subject, though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .
...

Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

Out of curiosity has the Indian government taken action against Hindu terror groups such as the Vishva Hindu Parishad?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
USA never said it was going to do it either alone or by military means only.

We will win this if it takes the next 100 years.

paiktis is a piece of sh1t by the way. Go shave your back you fuc king p ussy ass b1tch.

ooooh... is that ghetto talk?