How do you win a "War On Terror"?

Quote:

You only address things you disagree with and these you attack with a vengeance.

This is called debate. As I mentioned elsewhere, should I agree with you, I will mention it. I agreed with Mcgentrix on another thread. It is possible, just unlikely.

hobitbob wrote:

If they had any real desire to avoid "collateral damage" they wouldn't use those sort of munitions.

You obviously don't even try to get it. We used a great number of tomahawk missiles to pinpoint our strikes as well as is technologically possible, to avoid collateral damage.

Most every other military force on earth would have used a whole lot of "dumb" bombs, at a tiny fraction of the price, to get the job done.

You are so set in your beliefs, that you ignore facts to make your points.

It makes it rather pointless to debate with you.

It is a real shame too, because I believe you could probably teach me much if you weren't so hell-bent on backing your incorrect statements.

In Israel a similar situation is in place. Imagine yourself to be a moderate Palestinian, who often makes it to work or school only one or tweo days a week, because of the neccessity of passing through multiple "checkpoints" set up by an occupying government. Often your power or water are turned off with no notice, and the occupying government frequently bombs your neighborhood, killing tens of people at a time. Would you not wish to fight back ? Would you not become radicalized?

hobitbob wrote:

In Israel a similar situation is in place. Imagine yourself to be a moderate Palestinian, who often makes it to work or school only one or tweo days a week, because of the neccessity of passing through multiple "checkpoints" set up by an occupying government. Often your power or water are turned off with no notice, and the occupying government frequently bombs your neighborhood, killing tens of people at a time. Would you not wish to fight back ? Would you not become radicalized?

No, I would not. I would find out who theye are targeting and move my family away from them.

If that wasn't possible, I provide information to the authorities about their locations as they are endangering my family.

I would get my friends together and tell those people that they are destroying what they are trying to save and that they should leave my neighborhood.

Then, when my family found my body I would hope they would provide me with a proper burial.

I have tried to steer the discusion to a specific situation. I posted the agenda of Al Q. Is it possible to focus on that?

There is no point in the back and forth of "Good guys vs bad guys".

Solutions other than what Dubya and gang are practicing?

Pistoff- I agree with Occam Bill. Are we debating the issues, or do you want this thread to be a "mutual admiration society?"

Come on Wilso, surely you see a distinction between collateral damage and intentionally targeting innocents. It is a crying shame, but not terrorism.

think we need to be much more aware of the factors that contributed to terrorism in the first place. We have to understand that barging into the region waging wars and making threats is not condusive to our ultimate goal.

I'd like to start off by writing how NOT to win the war on terror:

- you don't surrender.
- you don't give in to their demands.

With respect to the IRA, I recall Prime Minister Thatcher saying "You can either give in to the terrorists, or you can kill them." I believe that position has stood the test of time.

To say that wars against terror cannot be won ignores the historical record. The Romans had it down to a science. Using only slightly less unpalatable tactics, we defeated the terrorist Hitler 60 years ago. The only question, as I see it, is do we believe Western Civilization is worth defending?

I like to conclude with a text from Dr. Michael Grant from the book "The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire", pages 67-68. This was published in 1999:

"Dare one, also, link up this theme with modern affairs, as possibly relevant to some of our own predicaments? Certainly the Roman Empire had very different boundaries from our own western world - which does not terminate at the Rhine, but much further east and north - and it is more than doubtful whether we can ever extend the western world as far to the south-east as the Romans did. Nevertheless, the Roman imperial phenomenon does ring a bell, because it does contain points of relevance to what is happening today, or rather to what will be happening before long. For what is likely to be happening is a confrontation between the western world and those outside it. It also attacked the Roman empire, which was nearly destroyed (3rd century) but not quite. It was saved because of its superior organisation. This meant that, in the end, it was able to overcome the enemies who had seemed so extremely likely to demolish it. The price was terrible; and so will be the price today. But the point at issue is survival - the Roman empire survived, and so, in all probability, will the West today."

'Win' the war?

Perhaps not, but I believe we can make it so costly for our enemies to conduct such a war against us that the frequency of attacks drops off to almost nothing.

I haven't seen any reports of terrorist attacks against targets in America since the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq so our current course must be having some effect on the terrorist networks.

That is a scary proposition. I've heard that fear before, and it is reasonable, but I've seen no evidence of it thus far... I don't believe we're creating more terrorists than we're destroying.

Widi, 17, says he wants to be an Islamic leader when he graduates from Al Mukmin school in Solo, and he's well on his way. In a small classroom with windows steamed up from humidity, Widi talks about his views on Indonesia, Islam, and his education at the school some experts refer to as the "Harvard of suicide bombers""there's also a Yale, a Princeton, and a Columbia."

How can we win a war against Islamist terror?

In the same way that any war is won - by depriving the enemy of the hope of victory.

The Moslem world has awakened to the discovery of its relative backwardness after several centuries of exploitation and misrule at the hands of Europeans.

This engenders a spectrum of reactions, which can be illustrated by a desire for modernism and western-style economic and political development on one pole and a somewhat fanatical desire to recapture old glories through a restoration of Islamist rule and jihad against the west on the other.

Our war is with the latter extreme. We can win it by taking actions to (1) contain the extremists and their terror, and (2) seeing to it that the first group wins the contest for the new leadership of the Moslem world.

With this in mind it is possible to grasp the essence of the Bush administration's strategy.

Iraq is, by virtue of history and culture, the one Moslem state with the greatest potential for successful modern economic and political development.

A change in Iraq can profoundly affect the future direction of development in Iran, Saudi Arabia and therefore the whole Middle East.

It is merely ironic that Europe, after creating this mess, is so inclined to criticize us for attempting to deal with it.

Read this and tell me if you still feel that way:

PDiddie wrote:

Read this and tell me if you still feel that way:

Yes, I do. I do thank you for your information, but: It provides no evidence that we are creating more enemies than we are destroying.

I concede that this war is certainly creating some enemies, but I do not believe we are upside-down in that category.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute shall we? Do you think the attack on the World Trade Center created more enemies than it destroyed?

The World Trade Center was not a legitimate military target.

The victims of that attack were made up many races, many cultures and were certainly not organized there to plan attacks on anyone.

They were innocent bystanders who were attacked for no reason other than the shock value of the deed itself.

This, my friends, is a terrorist act.

By contrast, the attack on the pentagon was a brilliantly conceived strategy to inflict harm on a legitimate military target.

In this attack; the innocent victims would fall into the category of "collateral damage".

Since the target itself is of strategic military importance, I would not consider this to be a terrorist act, but rather a brilliantly executed military strategy. Do you see the difference?

I do not think terrorists are mindless hateful creatures who desire carnage and live to hate.

I believe they are highly motivated individuals who must have some rationale for believing that their actions are justified.

While I don't fully understand the motivations of every terrorist movement; I have to assume that they have legitimate reasons for being angry.

In some cases they may be absolutely right. Being right however; doesn't justify the strategically meaningless slaughter of innocents.

I've heard mention of international policy violations in our attacks. I'm not convinced any consequential violations have occurred on our part.

I am certain our enemies have violated these rules of engagement to the point they deserve no protections from same. I submit that our alleged violations are petty when compared to theirs.

Now if the United States is your sworn enemy for legitimate reasons, you are well within your rights to defend yourself and attack legitimate targets.

However; if you believe every member of the United State's civilian population is a legitimate target, than you are a terrorist, who needs to be destroyed.

I do not support the annihilation of any nation's population. I do support the annihilation of any group whose mission is. Do you see the difference?

Random attacks on bus stops, cafés, nightclubs and any other target devoid of strategic military importance; fall into the category of terrorism.

My morality or lack thereof, allows me to believe the perpetrators of these acts should be destroyed. I will not shed a tear for these criminals, regardless of there cause.

Attacks on military bases, government offices and soldiers; fall into the category of resistance. I would not (necessarily) consider the perpetrators of these actions terrorists.

My morality or lack thereof, forces me to believe these enemies should be afforded all of the protections of international rules of engagement.

I hope it is clear that; deductive reasoning, not stupidity, is the foundation for my beliefs.

I'll happily debate the merit of my arguments, but only with those who recognize my right to believe the way I do.

If you choose to quote me, please address the paragraphs, not the sentences. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of argument.