How to win the war on terror.

Nice, Ebrown.

I'd add to that list some way of getting our (and their) civilians to recognize and respect one anothers culture. Unfortunately, our culture is one of the reasons why alot of them hate us (thanks, religion!)

When we see the other side as little more than "animals" or "savages", etc, it makes it much easier to kill them and dismiss their views.

The whole damn situation is a disaster. I think George Carlin said it best when he stated, "Can someone stop the Earth? I want to get off..."

I have respect for this discussion. I want to roll with it in the manner it was designed. And I agree on many of the things that Ebrown introduces.

But, first of all, can we quit attacking religion and Christianity as if they are the cause of all that is wrong with the world? A majority of the people who decided the path we take on the war against terrorism aren't even Christian. And as far as being religious, we all have a system of beliefs. Religion is no more than that. Your political views as well as any other view you might have make up your religion. Even though most people simply take religion to be a person's belief in God, there are are other definitions.

I will not discuss those points any further in this disscussion.

Moving right along, I have been confused from the beginning of this entire situation why we named Bin Laden and went after Hussein. Trying to defend my leaders, I have met with failure when it comes to most members on A2K. That's ok. I never said I couldn't admit to being wrong. But, this was an actual confusion of mine from the outset. Our attempts to get Bin Laden have been small if not nil compared to our attempts to when a war in Iraq. We named a card full of people and not one of them was Bin Laden. I don't think so anyway, tell me if I'm wrong.

I don't think we show much respect to any other people when we try to take over and make them more like us. What happened to having respect for the ideals and characteristics of another culture? Not all cultures should have a democracy. Some are very comfortable with having a King, a Queen, a dictator...etc. It might seem harsh from our understandings, but these are the characteristics of another community. We should respect that. Defending a nation against an unruly ruler is one thing, replacing a system of government is another. But, that leads us back to why we are all about Iraq anyway. Bin Laden should be the focus and should have always remained the focus. How our attention was diverted to Hussein is one on me?

I think military action is necessary in certain circumstances. It needs to be used with discretion as Ebrown has stated. You can't just throw thousands of men with rifles into any situation. Military action also is a show of force, peace keeping missions like feeding the poor and taking care of the ill, building confidence in the people like restoring housing and patiently teaching the people the purpose for our occupancy, providing security for the people's protection until they can provide one for themselves and overall, more importantly than anything else we do, to show that we are indeed a friendly with friendly intentions. At least that's what we have been lead to believe. I hope that's the truth. I hope that's what our purpose actually is.

Unless I'm misreading every statement on these forums regarding the War on Terror, there is no generalized attack on Christianity but on the misuse of the religion as in characterizing the war as a Crusade. I wonder who has uttered that word once too often?

I didn't want to divert


I had mentioned I didn't want to return to the "religious" aspect of this issue. Just read the first two posts in this discussion. If misuse is how you want to categorize it, that's fine. That is more on the part of the terrorists though wouldn't you think? Certainly, peacekeepers don't view this as a religious war.

Ebrown has said what I feel about the situation. It is not too late to reverse the mistakes of the present and recent past, but the more we blindly strike out in the Middle East instead of pursuing humanitarian inspired policies, the harder it will be to win over all those hearts and minds.

War on "terror?"

How can you declare war on a feeling?

-Jon Stewart.

Re: How to win the war on terror.


I believe this is a myth. They are a relatively small and finite group. We are not going to be able to kill all of them but we can kill enough of them. They are not the legendary hydra. When one dies, seven don't take his place. The recent events in Saudi Arabia will be instructive on this point. The Saudis have managed to kill the top leadership of al-Qaida in their country. If the acts of terrorism increase or do not markedly abate, then I will have to rethink my position.



A small group of determined monsters with money and weapons do not need the support of the majority of their fellow citizens to wreck havoc and mayhem. Witness Timothy McVeigh. We are never going to win the hearts and minds of the hardcore Islamist terrorists and they don't need the people's support to continue their war against us.



We are giving some militants a voice with some of the things we are doing.
The war will only be a gift to bin Laden if we cut and run. If we succeed and democracy takes root in the Middle East, it will be an enormous blow against the terrorists. They know it and they are going to do everything to try and stop it, including indiscriminately killing their fellow muslims.

Abu Graib was a disaster, and I'm still waiting for someone responsible to be held accountable, but there are always going to be disasters in every war. No matter how we play it, we are going to make mistakes.

The argument as to whether or not the actions you cite are legal is only irrelevant if one accepts your premise that they have no value, or that their downside far outweighs their upside. If it was truly irrelevant, the implication would be that any action would be acceptable providing it doesn't give the enemy any sort of propaganda victory. I doubt you mean this though.



First of all whom do you mean by "we?" The American People? Our political leaders? Our military?

Secondly, how have you come to the conclusion that "we" don't believe that Arabs are caring, intelligent and decent people?

Thirdly, are you arguing that Abu Graib is tantamount to treating all Arabs as monsters and animals, or do you have examples of widespread mistreatment of Arabs everywhere?

Finally, are you arguing that leaving Saddam in power and not establishing a democratic government in Iraq would have been more indicative of being on the side of the ordinary Iraqis, then ridding them of a dictator and giving their country back to them?

I do listen to the Terrorists. Do you?

Feb. 28, 1998 (Long before Afghanistan, Iraq and Abu Graib)

In the fatwa, bin Laden states: "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it..."

In a broadcast of new elements from the January interview, al-Jazeera shows bin Laden telling their interviewer that American civilians are prime targets because they support killing Muslims through their tax payments. The interview represents his broadest rationale for killing Americans. "Jihad now knows that with few weapons and people they destroyed the biggest war machine in Afghanistan. In our opinion, a superpower means nothing. The U.S. is much weaker than the Soviet Union was. We've learned from our Somali brothers how weak and cowardly American soldiers are. They lost only 80 people and they fled. "I look at the great men who attacked Khobar and Riyadh with great respect, those who made the explosions in Riyadh, Khobar, East Africa and young Palestinians who are giving the Israelis a lesson.

"We promise that we will not let you live safely and will not see anything else from us: just bombs, fires, destroying homes, cutting your heads."

"We must destroy Rome. The destruction must be carried out by the sword. Those who will destroy Rome are already preparing the swords. Rome will be conquered, not with the word but with the force of arms. Rome is a cross. The West is a cross and Romans are owners of the cross. Muslim' target is the West. We will split Rome open."

""the infidel (Paul Johnson) got his fair treatment. ... Let him taste something of what Muslims have long tasted from Apache helicopter fire and missiles."



This is an incredibly simplistic description of the war in Iraq, and it is too early to measure its effectiveness.



What is the US government doing to keep the Saudi royal family in power despite the wishes of the Saudi people?

What would you have the adminstration do?

You seem to forget Iran. The Shah was seen as a lapdog of the US and every bit as dictatorial as the Saudi royal family. His people rose up and overthrew him. Did we intervene and save his regime? Considering the international terrorism sponsored by the current rulers of Iraq, and the fact that they are every bit the dictators the Shah was, one might argue that we made a mistake by not intervening.

Perhaps if the Islamist terrorists were fighting the dictatorships of the Middle East it might be possible to see them as freedom fighters, but even when they rear their ugly heads in places like Saudi Arabia it is to kill Westerners not to overthrow their government.

This Islamist terrorist movement is not a liberation movement. If they are appealing to their so-called moderate brethren it is through killing Westerners, not their home grown Arab oppressors.



Most of the anger among ordinary people living in the region predated this adminstration. They are not going to be satisfied unless and until the US abandons Israel. Where is their anger when Palestinian leaders scuttle peace efforts? Are they incapable of an objective viewpoint? Are the Israelis always wrong? It sure seems that way, and if that's the case there is no way that America will ever be perceived as a fair broker.


And it is seen by many as the act of liberation it was. Their voices simply don't get as much media play.



We agree. On this point I think we only disagree that military action in Iraq was inappropriate.

If it can be clearly established that bin Laden and most of the remaining al-Qaida leadership are being given refuge in Iran (Which some experts believe), and Iran refused to turn them over, would you support military action directed solely at their conclaves, but engaging any elements of the Iranian armed forces that interfered (as we all know they would)?



A basically facile statement.You need to provide a lot more detail here.



This is more a matter of personal sensibilities than strategic value. As bin Laden himself said "A man naturally is attracted to a strong horse, while he shys away from a weak one." The Arab culture is extremely macho, by our standards. 9/11 happened, in part, because they thought we were weak, and that having dealt us such a severe blow we would fold up our tents and run.



We are.



We're not, but it's a long war being waged on numerous and varied fronts.

Our government's international PR is now a creaky machine that the politicians are trying to oil with their own unctuous souls.

And oil being the prime word.

Look at the responses to ebrowns post. Entirely predictable. More predictable responses from the other active posters will follow. Hopefully they will remain polite and thought out, but no one will budge and inch.

We are hopelessly divided and mired down.

This is the lasting legacy of George W Bush the "Great Uniter"

To force American style democracy down the throats of every other sovereign nation on earth would be a grave error if our leaders were saints.

How much more of a mistake is it then, when we are mired down in corruption and saddled with contemptible leadership and it's held in front of the world.

Before we are able to set an example for the world or be a positive force for lasting change WHERE NECESSARY and DESIRED, we need to clean our own house.

I happen to agree with ebrowns excellent post btw.

> applause to Ebrown <
it is about damn time someone said it honestly and didnt finger point.

But...unfortunatly, religion has become a HUGE scapegoat for everything people do not want to take personal responsibility for. I dont see there being much room for religion to be removed from this situation.