[TheMontashu]

I agree, also ignoring the root causes of terrorism also will not work. Therefore governments need to be smarter in what they are doing. For example the Israeli government could create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza territories, this would actually remove many of the arguments used to support the Palestinian cause (although I acknowledge not all) and the in-fighting amongst the various factions for power in the new state would definitely reduce terror attacks on Israel.

Originally there was a Palestine and Israel. But when Israel was declared a nation the nations around it invaded Israel survived. Through the course of Muslim nations attacking Israel ended up with control over Palestine. At one time Israel controlled a huge resource rich aria of Egypt that doubled Israel’s territory, but they gave it back.

 

[fluff]

Originally there was a Palestine and Israel. But when Israel was declared a nation the nations around it invaded Israel survived. Through the course of Muslim nations attacking Israel ended up with control over Palestine. At one time Israel controlled a huge resource rich aria of Egypt that doubled Israel’s territory, but they gave it back.

You have some facts in there but a little confused. The West Bank and Gaza were not originally part of Israel and they are not currently controlled by any Muslim nation. The Oslo accord would have worked toward a Palestinian state in these areas.

Sinai is the bit of Egypt.

 

[cali4niabiker]

I agree, also ignoring the root causes of terrorism also will not work. Therefore governments need to be smarter in what they are doing. For example the Israeli government could create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza territories, this would actually remove many of the arguments used to support the Palestinian cause (although I acknowledge not all) and the in-fighting amongst the various factions for power in the new state would definitely reduce terror attacks on Israel.

The US government had massive international support following 9/11 (due to the scale of the attack mainly) and could easily have harnessed it more successfully. The invasion of Afghanistan was generally supported, the invasion of Iraq was a major strategic mistake (in GWOT terms). The US stopped going after terrorists and instead went after a guy they hated.

Had they pushed for the right to create a (possibly UN sanctioned) anti-terror force they may have retained much support and the ability to attack terror directly, but then that's not what the current administration wanted.

Ignoring the root causes of terrorism also will not work.

Well, the US troops have eliminated and weeded out the terrorist cells in Afganistan and, to some extent, in Iraq. Basically, IMO the idea is to disrupt the operation of the terrorist cells by going after the head cheeses. If you take out the head terrorists, you leave the network in chaos. For example, in WWII, Hitler shot himself and left Germany in chaos... and that is a huge advantage.

Think of it this way. You take out the experienced terrorists (i.e., Bin Laden or his little midgets), leaving the network to less experienced people. Less experienced ones = most likely to make more mistakes. Mistakes = leaves a trail for the dogs to roll in and take them out. Granted, the threat may not be completely eliminated... but it is better off now IMO than it was 3 years ago.

 

[Westy]

Of course you just might be one of the first ones to squall, "...why were we not warned," and "...how come the government didn't let us know that there were plots afoot?", when another terrorist attack takes place within the US.

Yep you've got me all figured out. :nuts:
I'll be the last one to complain about such things. [Disclaimer] Although 9-11 was a horrible tragedy[/disclaimer] I think most Americans have been a bunch of pansies when it comes to the idea of Terrorism. In todays world sh1t is going to happen and people need to accept it and learn to live/die with it. We can't expect the government to coddle and protect us from the day we are born till we die 90 years later. The world is a harsh painful place Americans need to come to terms with that.

 

[Toshi]

... the libby news called the scum hostage takers "militants" and not terrorists.

Is the word 'terrorist' too judgemntal for the liberal press?

this raises an interesting question: are there any forms of armed revolt against a government that do NOT constitute terrorism in the eyes of a conservative?

 

[Toshi]

Well, the US troops have eliminated and weeded out the terrorist cells in Afganistan and, to some extent, in Iraq. Basically, IMO the idea is to disrupt the operation of the terrorist cells by going after the head cheeses. If you take out the head terrorists, you leave the network in chaos. For example, in WWII, Hitler shot himself and left Germany in chaos... and that is a huge advantage.

Think of it this way. You take out the experienced terrorists (i.e., Bin Laden or his little midgets), leaving the network to less experienced people. Less experienced ones = most likely to make more mistakes. Mistakes = leaves a trail for the dogs to roll in and take them out. Granted, the threat may not be completely eliminated... but it is better off now IMO than it was 3 years ago.

how have you evaluated this? all sources i've seen have said that al qaeda has suffered nothing more than temporary setbacks by u.s. led or inspired raids and arrests.

 

[ohio]

this raises an interesting question: are there any forms of armed revolt against a government that do NOT constitute terrorism in the eyes of a conservative?

Sure. During a Democratic presidency/majority.

 

[ohio]

how have you evaluated this? all sources i've seen have said that al qaeda has suffered nothing more than temporary setbacks by u.s. led or inspired raids and arrests.

Bush told him so, and, gosh, I just can't help but believe him. He seems like such a nice down-to-earth guy.

 

[Westy]

how have you evaluated this? all sources i've seen have said that al qaeda has suffered nothing more than temporary setbacks by u.s. led or inspired raids and arrests.

I saw some interesting graffiti the other day that read "Thomas Jefferson Supported Terrorism".

 

[fluff]

Well, the US troops have eliminated and weeded out the terrorist cells in Afganistan and, to some extent, in Iraq. Basically, IMO the idea is to disrupt the operation of the terrorist cells by going after the head cheeses. If you take out the head terrorists, you leave the network in chaos. For example, in WWII, Hitler shot himself and left Germany in chaos... and that is a huge advantage.

Think of it this way. You take out the experienced terrorists (i.e., Bin Laden or his little midgets), leaving the network to less experienced people. Less experienced ones = most likely to make more mistakes. Mistakes = leaves a trail for the dogs to roll in and take them out. Granted, the threat may not be completely eliminated... but it is better off now IMO than it was 3 years ago.

The problem is that Bin Laden is not taken out and the facts do not support your last sentence.

Other than that the theory appears to have merit, but in practice... plus which Iraq was a major diversion.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I believe something like 2/3rds of the known Al_Q leaders have been captured and/or killed.

Al_Q has not, yet so far, been able to launch a follow up attack on the US post 9-11. Not saying that it won't happen but the current climate of heightened vigilance seems to be working.

I'm certain that if Al_Q was able to pull off another spectactular attack they would have done it. As of now, lauching such an operation got a whole lot more difficult post 9-11.

 

[MikeD]

I believe something like 2/3rds of the known Al_Q leaders have been captured and/or killed.

Al_Q has not, yet so far, been able to launch a follow up attack on the US post 9-11. Not saying that it won't happen but the current climate of heightened vigilance seems to be working.

I'm certain that if Al_Q was able to pull off another spectactular attack they would have done it. As of now, lauching such an operation got a whole lot more difficult post 9-11.

Al-Queada has a far longer attention span than the American public. We're still deep in a war that we won't truly acknowledge with anything other than lip service and grandstanding and lots of money that's not fixing the problems. But no American leader would last long in politics if he did what needed to be done, I think. We just wouldn't want to hear or do it, and we'd elect someone with better news.

We're also at a major continuity disadvantage. Even if cells or leaders die or go away, Al-Queada marches along year after year with the same goals, despite temporary setbacks. We have a changeover of power ever 4-8 years, and leaders beholden to the afforementioned short-attention-span, head-in-the-sand public. And we're fighting the hydra, to whom 4-8 years isn't long to wait between major strikes. It's not good.

MD

 

[Slugman]

If you take out the head terrorists, you leave the network in chaos. For example, in WWII, Hitler shot himself and left Germany in chaos... and that is a huge advantage.

I know what you're trying to say... but things went to Sh*t for the Nazi's BEFORE Hitler killed himself. The allied forces were bombing him and ready to capture him ... the war was already lost - so Hitlers death did little to sway the war.

 

[Slugman]

I believe something like 2/3rds of the known Al_Q leaders have been captured and/or killed.

Al_Q has not, yet so far, been able to launch a follow up attack on the US post 9-11. Not saying that it won't happen but the current climate of heightened vigilance seems to be working.

I'm certain that if Al_Q was able to pull off another spectactular attack they would have done it. As of now, lauching such an operation got a whole lot more difficult post 9-11.

KNOWN leaders are not the problem. How many of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were KNOWN? I think like 2 or 3... that's 16%. So you are comfortable with that trend? We've taken out 66% of the 19% of the leaders.

9-11 was 10 years in the making... and there are Islamic groups in Africa and Southeast Asia that have not been affected by our actions... but we've probably pissed them off.

Unlike me, Al_Q doesn't care who is in office. They see the US and our culture as the enemy. So, to them it didn't matter if it was W or Gore, it won't matter if it is W or Kerry (or ralphie), and 4 years from now it won't matter if it's Hillary or that GOP Lapdog McCain. Once again, much like your favorite President, you're confusing Al_Q with Iraq.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I know what you're trying to say... but things went to Sh*t for the Nazi's BEFORE Hitler killed himself. The allied forces were bombing him and ready to capture him ... the war was already lost - so Hitlers death did little to sway the war.

However, the 2 nukes we dropped on Japan did in fact force an immediate end to WWII and spared an estimated 1 million US casualities.

Harry S . Truman for President and in leiu of him, Geo. Bush!

 

[s1ngletrack]

People (Terrorists for N8) employ tactics like these because they beleive that their enemies are weak and can not accept loss. If you give in to any of their demands or try to negotiate it just reinforces their ideas. It would be interesting if the Russians just dropped a fuel air explosive over the school taking everyone out. It would be an interesting response that might deter such a thing happening again. Of course if I had family in the school I might think otherwise.

Ahhh - A kindred spirit.

 

[Tenchiro]

However, the 2 nukes we dropped on Japan did in fact force an immediate end to WWII and spared an estimated 1 million US casualities.

Harry S . Truman for President and in leiu of him, Geo. Bush!

Spared their lives, in trade for nearly half a million lives of women, children and the elderly.

Go us!

 

[N8 v2.0]

KNOWN leaders are not the problem. How many of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were KNOWN? I think like 2 or 3... that's 16%. So you are comfortable with that trend? We've taken out 66% of the 19% of the leaders.

9-11 was 10 years in the making... and there are Islamic groups in Africa and Southeast Asia that have not been affected by our actions... but we've probably pissed them off.

Unlike me, Al_Q doesn't care who is in office. They see the US and our culture as the enemy. So, to them it didn't matter if it was W or Gore, it won't matter if it is W or Kerry (or ralphie), and 4 years from now it won't matter if it's Hillary or that GOP Lapdog McCain. Once again, much like your favorite President, you're confusing Al_Q with Iraq.

Your fooling yourself if you think Al_Q didn't want to follow up 9-11 with part 2 within the first 12 months.

We need a President who will have the stones to take it to the enemy. Conducting some kind of "softer" war on terrorism ain't gonna cut it and worrying about what the population of other countries think of the US's actions in this war is unimportant and more than likely quite dangerous.

 

[MikeD]

However, the 2 nukes we dropped on Japan did in fact force an immediate end to WWII and spared an estimated 1 million US casualities.

Harry S . Truman for President and in leiu of him, Geo. Bush!

Al-Queada isn't Japan...if al-queada had a capital city, we'd have a-bombed it long ago. Instead, we took Kabul while letting 80% or more of the Taleban and AQ fighters melt away across borders we didn't seal. They'll be back, and Karzai's gonna be in trouble. (hey la, hey la?)

Instead of occupying without killing them all, we should have killed them all (the fighters, that is) and then left the country. The Afghans understand that. Now, we look weak and the Karzai government is a fat, attractive symbol and easy target, not to mention pretty distasteful to your average Afghan.

Again, we're fighting the hydra...it just grows parts back while your attention gets diverted elsewhere.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Spared their lives, in trade for nearly half a million lives of women, children and the elderly.

Go us!

Ah... the same number of Japanese civilians would have died, quite possibly more, if we had invaded Japan.

So, it all came down to how many US casualties Truman was willing to take.

But thanks for the US bashing comment though anyhow.

 

[Tenchiro]

We need a President who will have the stones to take it to the enemy. Conducting some kind of "softer" war on terrorism ain't gonna cut it and worrying about what the population of other countries think of the US's actions in this war is unimportant and more than likely quite dangerous.

Apparantly we still don't have one, because we are off in a county that had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead of places like, erm umm Saudi Arabia for instance...

 

[MikeD]

Your fooling yourself if you think Al_Q didn't want to follow up 9-11 with part 2 within the first 12 months.

We need a President who will have the stones to take it to the enemy. Conducting some kind of "softer" war on terrorism ain't gonna cut it and worrying about what the population of other countries think of the US's actions in this war is unimportant and more than likely quite dangerous.

You're a fool if you thing al_Q doesn't care if it has to wait 5-10 years to follow up.

And if this war is 'hard,' man, I don't want to see soft. If 'hard' means...nevermind, I'll finish this up at home.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Al-Queada isn't Japan...if al-queada had a capital city, we'd have a-bombed it long ago. Instead, we took Kabul while letting 80% or more of the Taleban and AQ fighters melt away across borders we didn't seal. They'll be back, and Karzai's gonna be in trouble. (hey la, hey la?)

Instead of occupying without killing them all, we should have killed them all (the fighters, that is) and then left the country. The Afghans understand that. Now, we look weak and the Karzai government is a fat, attractive symbol and easy target, not to mention pretty distasteful to your average Afghan.

Again, we're fighting the hydra...it just grows parts back while your attention gets diverted elsewhere.

MD

I wasn't saying Al_Q was anything like WWII Japan. I was pointing out that it takes a LEADER with resolve to do what needs to be done to protect the US.

And Kerry isn't.

 

[Tenchiro]

Ah... the same number of Japanese civilians would have died, quite possibly more, if we had invaded Japan.

So, it all came down to how many US casualties Truman was willing to take.

But thanks for the US bashing comment though anyhow.

So your saying that a country that was all but beaten and being forced to train young boys to fly their planes into our ships, because they had no ammo. Could have inflicted a million casualties on the US in a single invasion?

And I wasn't bashing the US, just that decision of it leaders at the time.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Apparantly we still don't have one, because we are off in a county that had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead of places like, erm umm Saudi Arabia for instance...

Oh?

Saddam what just hanging out working on making mud pies. No way he'd support Al_Q, I mean since those guys hate the US... No way he'd give Al_Q mud pies to toss at the US either if given the opportunity... the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Poor ol' Saddam...

 

[Tenchiro]

Oh?

Saddam what just hanging out working on making mud pies. No way he'd support Al_Q, I mean since those guys hate the US... No way he'd give Al_Q mud pies to toss at the US either if given the opportunity... the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Poor ol' Saddam...

Mud pies is apparantly all he was capable of making...

That is unless there is still a double super secret stash of weapons buried somewhere in the desert.

 

[N8 v2.0]

So your saying that a country that was all but beaten and being forced to train young boys to fly their planes into our ships, because they had no ammo. Could have inflicted a million casualties on the US in a single invasion?

And I wasn't bashing the US, just that decision of it leaders at the time.

You have to recall that Japan has NEVER been defeated in war.

The to them the Bushido spirit was not some abstract concept, it was a way of life. Surrender was not something that the Japanese people were going to do willingly on their own.

 

[Westy]

Oh?

Saddam what just hanging out working on making mud pies. No way he'd support Al_Q, I mean since those guys hate the US... No way he'd give Al_Q mud pies to toss at the US either if given the opportunity... the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Poor ol' Saddam...

Do you actually believe the crap you say??
Al_Q is pretty much based on Islamic Fundamentalism. Saddam was the guy killing and torturing the Muslim leaders in his country. I am sure A.Q. and the likes were happy to see Saddam go, and Saddam saw them as a danger. Saddam was all about Saddam and nothing else. Meanwhile the Saudis.........

 

[ohio]

Your fooling yourself if you think Al_Q didn't want to follow up 9-11 with part 2 within the first 12 months.

We need a President who will have the stones to take it to the enemy. Conducting some kind of "softer" war on terrorism ain't gonna cut it and worrying about what the population of other countries think of the US's actions in this war is unimportant and more than likely quite dangerous.

GullibleCount++

Kerry's approach, despite what the GOP would like you to believe, isn't to withdraw troops and operations and start handing out puppies. It is to continue the the full scale assault on terrorist cells and networks, but ADDITIONALLY work from the other end to stop policies that make recruiting new terrorists easier and easier every day. That side is (properly) termed "soft" because it involves diplomatic action rather than physical action. Every president prior to this administration (including Reagan and the arms race) understood the value of diplomacy. Bush is spending his time (and OUR money) trimming the leaves of a weed instead of destroying the roots. It must be attacked on BOTH fronts.

Besides, Bush's "hard" war and "resolve" are all show. He could never win the war this way and he knows it (admits it publicly). He's fighting to fight, and appear like he's fighting. Getting pretty far on that treadmill, if you ask me.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Mud pies is apparantly all he was capable of making...

That is unless there is still a double super secret stash of weapons buried somewhere in the desert.

Possibly all he was capable he was making at the moment but I don't see how you can bury your head in the sand and think otherwise.

 

[Toshi]

You have to recall that Japan has NEVER been defeated in war.

The to them the Bushido spirit was not some abstract concept, it was a way of life. Surrender was not something that the Japanese people were going to do willingly on their own.

this is not true. japan was rebuffed in 1592 and 1596 when toyotomi hideyoshi tried to invade korea in a decade-long fit of insanity.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/to/toyotomi_hideyoshi.html

furthermore the bushi (samurai) were pretty much useless, idle and humiliated from 1638ish on (after the shimabara rebellion). the tokugawa era was peaceful and japan was pretty much caught with their collective pants down when commodore perry sailed into japanese waters in the 19th century. allowing foreigners free access to japan was pretty much a defeat.

 

[Westy]

Possibly all he was capable he was making at the moment but I don't see how you can bury your head in the sand and think otherwise.

First you have to do is pull your head out of your ass!

 

[N8 v2.0]

GullibleCount++

Kerry's approach, despite what the GOP would like you to believe, isn't to withdraw troops and operations and start handing out puppies. It is to continue the the full scale assault on terrorist cells and networks, but ADDITIONALLY work from the other end to stop policies that make recruiting new terrorists easier and easier every day. That side is (properly) termed "soft" because it involves diplomatic action rather than physical action. Every president prior to this administration (including Reagan and the arms race) understood the value of diplomacy. Bush is spending his time (and OUR money) trimming the leaves of a weed instead of destroying the roots. It must be attacked on BOTH fronts.

Besides, Bush's "hard" war and "resolve" are all show. He could never win the war this way and he knows it (admits it publicly). He's fighting to fight, and appear like he's fighting. Getting pretty far on that treadmill, if you ask me.

So you are proposing we nuke Israel..?

 

[Slugman]

Harry S . Truman for President and in leiu of him, Geo. Bush!

W is no Truman...

Truman proudly served during WW1 (Field Artillery)
Truman was an elected a judge
Truamn was a Senator
Truamn headed the Senate war investigating committee(Saved billions).
Truman would have been called a Liberal by today's GOP...

He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, "symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right." It became known as the Fair Deal.

Another difference -

In foreign affairs he was already providing his most effective leadership.

And another -

When the Russians blockaded the western sectors of Berlin in 1948, Truman created a massive airlift to supply Berliners until the Russians backed down. Meanwhile, he was negotiating a military alliance to protect Western nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established in 1949.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html

 

[N8 v2.0]

First you have to do is pull your head out of your ass!

Resorting to that now eh..?

 

[N8 v2.0]

this is not true. japan was rebuffed in 1592 and 1596 when toyotomi hideyoshi tried to invade korea in a decade-long fit of insanity.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/to/toyotomi_hideyoshi.html

furthermore the bushi (samurai) were pretty much useless, idle and humiliated from 1638ish on (after the shimabara rebellion). the tokugawa era was peaceful and japan was pretty much caught with their collective pants down when commodore perry sailed into japanese waters in the 19th century. allowing foreigners free access to japan was pretty much a defeat.

Rebuffed in Korea is not defeated on the Japanese homeland.

Iwo Jima was the indicator that the Japanese were not going to surrender to ground troops easily.

 

[N8 v2.0]

W is no Truman...

Truman proudly served during WW1 (Field Artillery)
Truman was an elected a judge
Truamn was a Senator
Truamn headed the Senate war investigating committee(Saved billions).
Truman would have been called a Liberal by today's GOP...
Another difference -
And another -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html

Yeah yeah.... and Bush appropreated millions and millions of dollars to Aids.

Bush was a govener of TX a'la LBJ but these don't make him a liberal.

 

[fluff]

N8 the relevancy of your comments about Japan tothe GWOT is minimal and th accruacy is questionable. 1 million US casualties forma country that was trying to surrender? Get real.

Oh and for your information the great Truman claimed to have no idea that civilians lived in Nagasaki, he thought it was solely a military base. (Or he was lying.)

 

[N8 v2.0]

N8 the relevancy of your comments about Japan tothe GWOT is minimal and th accruacy is questionable. 1 million US casualties forma country that was trying to surrender? Get real.

Oh and for your information the great Truman claimed to have no idea that civilians lived in Nagasaki, he thought it was solely a military base. (Or he was lying.)

1 million... yep.

A President lying to do what must be done in the best interest of the USA..???

 

[Slugman]

Oh and for your information the great Truman claimed to have no idea that civilians lived in Nagasaki, he thought it was solely a military base. (Or he was lying.)

Truman was following a previously layed out plan... the policy and targets were not his, he merely agree's with them (remember, he was thrust into the position when Roosevelt died).