Will the war on terror ever be won?

[Tom Paine]

@MasterAdnin the idea the the US and her allies at at war with all anti-US ME nations is patently untrue. The governments of many of those nations are actively shooting and blowing up the extremists within their own lands. The US alliance does not need to pansy about labelling wars as anything but wars - they could blow the ME to Kingdom Come if they so desired.

Yeah, but it'd be politically stupid. Think about the amount of money the ME has invested in the US. That'd just disappear and all debts'd be called in if it looked like the US was going to go on a crusade in the ME.

[boofhead]

Yeah, but it'd be politically stupid. Think about the amount of money the ME has invested in the US. That'd just disappear and all debts'd be called in if it looked like the US was going to go on a crusade in the ME.

Yes I agree it would be stupid. That is why the US is not at war with all those nations MasterAdnin implied. If he considers US propoganda against those nations acts of war, then I would suggest the ME nations in question are the warmongers. Their propoganda to their own people is almost beyond belief.

[Tom Paine]

Yes I agree it would be stupid. That is why the US is not at war with all those nations MasterAdnin implied. If he considers US propoganda against those nations acts of war, then I would suggest the ME nations in question are the warmongers. Their propoganda to their own people is almost beyond belief.

But then, there are more ways than one of going to war, no? Look at US actions as regards the main anti-American nations; two wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) and one set of sanctions with a lot of war rhetoric (Iran). All we really need to do is add Saudi... but can't do that, of course.

[MasterAdnin]

Yes I agree it would be stupid. That is why the US is not at war with all those nations MasterAdnin implied. If he considers US propoganda against those nations acts of war, then I would suggest the ME nations in question are the warmongers. Their propoganda to their own people is almost beyond belief.

[BushVoice]I believe you have Misunderestimated what I said[/BushVoice]

Basically what I meant was that any country which does not follow the US rules, or comply with the US and it's demands are deemed terrorists, usually in the Middle East. Some would be Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and one could even say Pakistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan I could understand, but why for heavens sake Iran and Pakistan? They can't lay a finger on the US without getting bombed into dust. Pakistan was threatened into helping the US, and Iran doesn't agree with the US on Israel. Pakistan was threatened and therefore HAD to help the US, while Iran was not forced by the US to help in the War on Terror.

If you see, the US is slowly westernizing the "Barbaric" Middle-East, as some US citizens would call it.

Salaam bro ,
Adnan

[Axe-Battler]

terrorism is as old as settled vs nomad

No the french started the first terror network in the early 1800s following the revolution.

if you're refering to maybe plunder, massacre, and brutal warfare then that's as old as Apes.

[boofhead]

No the french started the first terror network in the early 1800s following the revolution.

if you're refering to maybe plunder, massacre, and brutal warfare then that's as old as Apes.

Incorrect. The term was coined 1796-8 by the French, however terror networks are old. The Sicarii (as I mentioned above), the Assassins among others. I have the comprehensive book "Terrorism" by Walter Laqueur (1978) - this guy mainly focuses on right and left-wing European groups and anarchists but also Islamic & South American terrorism and its history, but also knew enough about it to predict what was coming regarding the extremist muslim fundamentalists.

Basically the term "terrorism" applies to any group whose main method of attaining their political or religious goals is to undertake a campaign of terror against their opponents, rather than outright war or by any other means.

A link also (there are many others which mention the Sicarii, the Assassins as terrorists also)

http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

[boofhead]

I would term Iraq and Afghanistan as "wars". Sanctions, diplomatic or economic or whatever, are in my opinion an attempt to avoid war, which I would suggest is quite the opposite.

I thought the Saudis were actually friends and allies of the US, hence the hatred for them of so many Wahhabiist extremists etc.

[Tom Paine]

boof, haven't we got such matters as tradewars, economic wars? That is effectively what sanctions boil down to.

[boofhead]

boof, haven't we got such matters as tradewars, economic wars? That is effectively what sanctions boil down to.

Yes, but that's just semantics/terminology: a game of rugby can also termed a 'war' but it's not. A war is killing people with weaponry. I hesitate to put words in his mouth, but I think that's what MasterAdnin was referring to in his post.

I'm not here for a long argument - just to refute the idea that the US is at war with everyone Middle-Eastern who is against them. That's just an accusation of racism, as I don't see the US bombing or imposing threats of sanctions against France.

[enoch]

I don't see the US bombing or imposing threats of sanctions against France.

if only we would....a guy can hope, eh?

[boofhead]

if only we would....a guy can hope, eh?

They almost deserve it

[PacSubCom]

They almost deserve it

Bring it on.

[Darth Wong]

They almost deserve it

Yeah, damn those Frenchies for correctly warning you before the Iraq invasion that it would be a huge waste of time, money, and blood and that you wouldn't find any WMDs! Damn them for being right!

[Gumpfendorfer]

Here is a comprehensive answer to the question asked in this thread and what needs to be done to avoid catastrophic consequences:

Summary: By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200705...ikes-back.html

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Here is a comprehensive answer to the question asked in this thread and what needs to be done to avoid catastrophic consequences:

Summary: By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200705...ikes-back.html

That's exactly when all the Democrats have been saying for the past 2 years. I disagree with that, here's why:

Al-Qaeda is an ideology. Al-Qeada des not have a Mission Statement or a heirarchial order. It's a loosely connected group of remorseless killers bound by a common ideology. For instance, the London bombers of 7/7 met Al-Qaeda agents AFTER they had planned and decided to cause massive death by suicide bombing.

As I said before, like an ideology, this will die down eventually. Perhaps after 50-75 years, the entire thing will die down.

[Gumpfendorfer]

True, its an ideology which in the end will fail. It has no goal whatsoever, but is able to cause more mayhem and anarchy than you would suspect. Barbarians who sacked Rome did not have a plan either other than destroy and booty.
Makes it also hard to defeat.

Read the article, it addresses related conflicts, otherthan Iraq, which are hardly discussed and need to be. And they are more urgent than you think, for starters: The Taliban's long awaited second offensive materialized with succes in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Was pretty obvious, strange enough Nato has been blind to it. The country destabilizes so fast now, I am really holding my breath.

[Axe-Battler]

Incorrect. The term was coined 1796-8 by the French, however terror networks are old. The Sicarii (as I mentioned above), the Assassins among others. I have the comprehensive book "Terrorism" by Walter Laqueur (1978) - this guy mainly focuses on right and left-wing European groups and anarchists but also Islamic & South American terrorism and its history, but also knew enough about it to predict what was coming regarding the extremist muslim fundamentalists.

Basically the term "terrorism" applies to any group whose main method of attaining their political or religious goals is to undertake a campaign of terror against their opponents, rather than outright war or by any other means.

A link also (there are many others which mention the Sicarii, the Assassins as terrorists also)

http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

oh okay, I never actually studied anything on terrorism, just saw the history channel narrator claim the french started the first terror network...

but you corrected that saying they coined the term rather than were the first to make the defined actions.

[PacSubCom]

ObL will probably sooner die of old age...

[Last Roman]

ObL will probably sooner die of old age...

that might be funny if it wasn't true.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

You can't kill an ideology... WW2 was fought mainly against facism and nazism but they both are alive and well.