War on Terror - winnable?

Great Debates
21

You like to have things dragged out, huh?
My clear implication was that if the US is perceived as a Christian nation who will invade Muslim countries without any international agreement in order to get US companies their oil, then it will be easy to persuade people to fund (and perform) terrorist acts.

So you think the US should declare war, bomb and invade and take as many US casualties (civilian and military) as necessary till every Muslim martyr is eliminated.
I think the US should move its troops out of Saudi Arabia. (And elect a President who knows something about foreign relations.)

22

Yes.

How?

Stop being afraid. That’s the only way terror will ever be defeated.

23

The War on Terror is definitely winnable. This war wasn’t chosen by the USA. It was forced upon us, but the USA/Civilized World will certainly win it.

Even though we are only in the opening stages of the war, quite a few significant achievements have been accomplished so far. The dismantling of the barbaric Taliban society in Afghanistan and the elimination of Saddam, the Butcher of Bagdhad’s regime.

This war is not against a bunch of christian girl scouts, or some obscure satanist cult running lose. As previous posters have pointed out, it is of course against militant islam and their radical, mass murdering disciples with perverse ambitions of world domination, martyrdom and 72 virgins. It is not a war against Islam as a whole of course, but rather against a perverted strain of Islam, which the terrorists subscribe to.

The way to win, is to simply keep doing what the coalition is currently doing, and expand into other problematic areas/countries, at a time of our choosing. These fundamentalist terrorist wackos have been waging war against the west for decades now, it took 9-11 for someone to finally put their foot down.

Keep killing/arresting all members of these outlawed groups, until they are all eliminated or locked up somewhere. Any government that actively aids or supports these groups in any way should be dealt with harshly and swiftly, either economically, militarily, or both. I think this is pretty much what the current policy is.

I believe the USA is doing pretty good so far, which is backed up by the fact that we have not yet been hit again with a major terror attack on our soil. We are doing the right thing by bringing the war to where the enemies are located, as opposed to waiting for them to export their terror to us. We have them scrambling and on the run. If certain countries in Europe are smart, then they will wake up from their coma soon, if not, then they will have a bunch of not so minor problems to deal with in the future, I believe.

After 9-11, the gloves came off, and I presume they will remain off for many decades to come.

The Terrorist scum have awakened a sleeping giant on 9-11, and I don’t think that giant has any intentions of resting just yet.

24

There are several problems with your suggested course. glee.[ol][]Although OBL cited our presence in Saudi Arabia, that’s not all the only problem he cited. He wrote, “in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam…” Would you recommend taking all American troops out of every Islamic country in the world?[]OBL’s statement never promises that he’ll call off the Jihad if we do remove all the troops. One can assume that he would do that, since his grievance would be solved, but he could easily come up with new grievances.[]Most importantly, it’s just disgusting to turn tail in the face of a terrorism threat. That’s just no way for the most powerful country to behave. It’s morally wrong. []Giving in to OBL’s terrorism would encourge al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to use the threat of terrorism to make other demands. In the long run, giving in to OBL’s terrorism would increase anti-American terrorism, not reduce it.[/ol]

25

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
There are several problems with your suggested course. glee.[ol][li]Although OBL cited our presence in Saudi Arabia, that’s not all the only problem he cited. He wrote, “in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam…” Would you recommend taking all American troops out of every Islamic country in the world?[]OBL’s statement never promises that he’ll call off the Jihad if we do remove all the troops. One can assume that he would do that, since his grievance would be solved, but he could easily come up with new grievances.[]Most importantly, it’s just disgusting to turn tail in the face of a terrorism threat. That’s just no way for the most powerful country to behave. It’s morally wrong. []Giving in to OBL’s terrorism would encourge al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to use the threat of terrorism to make other demands. In the long run, giving in to OBL’s terrorism would increase anti-American terrorism, not reduce it.[/ol] [/li][/QUOTE]

Most of your points above are well put.

My main idea in withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia is that it removes a basic knee-jerk recruiting slogan from Al-Quaeda “The unbelievers are in our holy places”.
Obviously I don’t consider Al-Quaeda’s demands reasonable, and there is no guarantee you can trust terrorists (as you point out). However I don’t believe that the replacement slogan “The US must withdraw from all Islamic countries” is going to lead to as much terrorist funding or suicide volunteeers.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I feel one reason that misguided US citizens sent money to the IRA to plant bombs was the wrong approach by successive British Governments. To tackle terrorism, you need to go to the root cause of the problem, not rely on military might.
I don’t consider that this is giving in, or turning tail, to the terrorists.
It also doesn’t matter that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Every government plagued by terrorists has far more resources and firepower. In fact, I wonder if that isn’t part of the problem - does the US feel it has to use its full military might every time, no matter what others suggest?

As for your final point “giving in to OBL’s terrorism would increase anti-American terrorism, not reduce it”, you have sadly slipped back to your usual irritating habit.
Of course I’m not suggesting that anyone gives in to terrorists. (I’ve been on a bus in London when an IRA bomb exploded about 100 feet from me. Nevertheless I support the Government’s commitment to stop that appalling violence. If we have to talk to the IRA and make a few negotiated concessions, so be it.)
But let’s look at the alternatives. You (and the scary Daisy Cutter) want to use only military means to pursue terrorists, invading any country that the US declares is supporting them, overthrowing Governments and ‘taking the gloves off’. I suppose that includes putting every ‘suspect’ in Guantanamo Bay, and holding them for life without trial (except when a US military court executes them).
Of course that’ll solve the problem. Absolutely no chance of breeding violent resentment and offending allies. Oh no, that will ‘reduce anti-American terrorism’. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

26

What’s Iraq/Saddam got to do with terrorism? Nothing I dare say.
What do the Taliban have to do with terrorism? Quite a lot probably, but the Atta and the other 9-11 pilots where trained in the US, hid in Europe and got their mony from Saudi Arabia.
In my opinion: Not much has been accomplished, but a lot shattered.

27

Since your knowledge of Europe is apparently on a par with that of Bush, perhaps I could invite you to use a search engine to look up:

IRA (especially ‘Omagh’ and ‘US funding’)

ETA

Baader Meinhoff

Lockerbie

As this is not the Pit, I can’t give my true opinion of the vicious callousness (or total stupidity) of your remark.

28

I’m interested in this assertion. You seem tremendously sure about it. Do you have any historical precedent whereby a similar tactic has decreased, rather than increased, terrorism?

29

You seem to blatenly ignore the other part of Glee’s post. You know the part about recruits. Terrorism isn’t about money. Would you blow yourself up for 1 million dollars? Whats the point if you are dead. The only thing a terrorist group needs money for is travel and weapons. (well food and such too, but thats a given) So, now tell tell Glee what he wants to hear and talk about the underlying causes of terrorism.

30

There is no ‘war against terrorism’, it’s a slogan. Period.

What we have is the empire conducting a regional re-alignment in the interests of its own security, dressed as aggression for its own domestic (and election) consumption.

31

I too learn something every day. I agree that Saudia Arabia is a Muslim country, but I wouldn’t call it a democracy. Or can you cite the Parliamentary debate where the people (especially the women) invited the US troops in?
You use the phrase ‘the King and leaders of that nation’. Presumably you know that means ‘the King and his relatives, who do what they like with that nation’?

And yes, I am saying that only the opinions of a small group of rich family dictators get to decide what troops are allowed into the sacred “Muslim holy lands & traditions”! :rolleyes:
From ‘Private Eye’ (UK investigative magazine), current edition (slightly edited for space reasons):

"The ban on British Airways flights to and from Saudi Arabia is a sharp reminder of the terrorist danger posed by that country.
it will give a further boost to the activities of US law firm Motley Rice, who are suing 200 mainly Saudi individuals for a trillion dollars.
Many of those sued are rich and famous - they include the current Saudi Ambassador to Britain - but the most worrying name on the list for President Bush is a billionaire called Khalid Bin Mahfouz.
Mahfouz shared business interests with Bush in the latter’s complex and rarely publicised sorties into the Texas oil business in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The failure of the US media to investigate this connection becomes all the more surprising after Bush’s remarkable decision to censor the results of the recent Congressional hearings into the 9/11 bombings. 28 pages of Congress’s 900 page report were blanked out.
“If people are being investigated” explained Bush, “it doesn’t make sense to let them know who are.” A more relevant way of putting the point might be that if people who had business connections with leading US politicians are being investigated, it doesn’t make sense to publish their names either.

…

A recent authoritative article in the Financial Times (Aug 13) argued that the recent war in Iraq was staged to make it easier for the Americans to withdraw from Saudia Arabia.
“The Saudis purchase Washington influence through consultancy contracts, big defence outlays on US military hardware, lucrative speeches for Washington insiders, investments in US businesses with influential figures and the like.
A long line of US senior officials has benefited, with the Ford / GH Bush / GW Bush White House and pentagon at the front of the line.”

Of course if Daisy Cutter :wally ever learns that the 9/11 terrorists weren’t sent by Saddam, but were financed with Saudi money, there’ll be a call to invade Saudi Arabia and occupy Mecca. Naturally this will immediately prevent any further Muslim terrorists. :confused:

32

Cause-and-effect relationships are difficult to prove. Most of us tend to see what we want to see.

One underlying cause is that the UN has been encouraging terrorism, according to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. He argues that the UN has encouraged terrorism by [ul][]Rewarding the terrorist Palestinian Authority with official recognition by the U.N., including observer status and invitations to speak and participate in committee work. The Palestinians are the group that invented and perfected modern international terrorism.[]Chairman Yasser Arafat was invited to speak to the U.N. General Assembly in 1974 at a time when his organization was seeking to destroy a member-state of the U.N. by terrorism. []By comparison, the Tibetans, whose land has been occupied more brutally and for a longer period than the Palestinians, but who have never practiced terrorism, cannot even receive a hearing from the U.N.[]The U.N. has for years refused to condemn terrorism unequivocally, while encouraging and upholding “the legitimacy of the struggle for national liberation movements” against “occupation” — in other words, the use of terrorism against innocent civilians to resist occupation. [] The U.N. has allowed Palestinian terrorists to use U.N.-sponsored “refugee camps” like Jenin as terrorist bases.[] The U.N. has repeatedly condemned efforts by Israel to prevent and respond to terrorism. The U.N. has allowed states such as Syria that sponsor terrorism to sit on the Security Council and to chair important committees, while denying Israel these same rights. This has sent the message that the U.N. applies a double standard when it comes to terrorism. [/ul]

33

I agree. It’s all the UN’s fault. They’ve done nothing to prevent terrorism in southern Lebanon, Cyprus or East Timor.

Oh, and you missed one:[ul]The U.N. has allowed states such as the US that sponsor terrorism to be a permanent member of the Security Council.[/ul](BTW, your “in other words” is disingenuous, too.)

34

Once again, can we please stay away from wild generalizations about all Islamic education and every country where Islam is practiced? Please refer to this previous thread on madrassas, which come in many flavors, and only a small proportion of which are the type you refer to:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=122962&highlight=yeshiva

And you didn’t ask my opinion about Fareed Zakaria, but I think he’s a genius, one of those all too rare individuals who articulately bridges the gap between cultural perceptions. I highly recommend this article as well:

“Why They Hate Us”

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html

Everyone who can’t understand the anti-American terrorist mindset should read this article. However many terrorists you kill, as long as there are such huge disparities in freedom and economic well-being around the world, there is a limitless supply of people who will resent those who are richer and freer than themselves. And the condescending manner in which the current administration has carried out it foreign and military policy (although more and more, it seems the foreign policy is indistinguishable from the military policy) just says to the rest of the world, “We really don’t give a damn what you think, because we only care about our own interests anyway.”

Foreign policy isn’t a zero-sum game, folks. If you play it well, everyone wins.

(and **december, ** why so coy? Aren’t you going to tell us what you think of Zakaria?)

35

For exactly the same reason Israel has never been offically condemned in the UN - China has a veto in the UNSC.

36

I wonder whether Mr Dershowitz - who I see widely referred to on Google as “pornographer” and “red neck academic” – has a blog we could refer to for further insights ?

Also, could you list his expertise on the subject of Palestine or the UN or both ?

In other words, why should I/we care what an academic lawyer thinks about anything except law ?

37

I don’t know how my last post got completely garbled, so I’ll try again:

Once again, can we please stay away from wild generalizations about all Islamic education and every country where Islam is practiced? Please refer to this previous thread on madrassas, which come in many flavors, and only a small proportion of which are the type you refer to:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=122962&highlight=yeshiva

And you didn’t ask my opinion about Fareed Zakaria, but I think he’s a genius, one of those all too rare individuals who articulately bridges the gap between cultural perceptions. I highly recommend this article as well:

“Why They Hate Us”

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html

Everyone who can’t understand the anti-American terrorist mindset should read this article. However many terrorists you kill, as long as there are such huge disparities in freedom and economic well-being around the world, there is a limitless supply of people who will resent those who are richer and freer than themselves. And the condescending manner in which the current administration has carried out it foreign and military policy (although more and more, it seems the foreign policy is indistinguishable from the military policy) just says to the rest of the world, “We really don’t give a damn what you think, because we only care about our own interests anyway.”

Foreign policy isn’t a zero-sum game, folks. If you play it well, everyone wins.

38

Of course it’s winnable. There’s 5 key steps necessary to be taken first though:

  1. Remove the imbecile Bush & his cabinet.

  2. Remove US troops from Iraq & allow them to govern themselves.

  3. Force Israel & Palestinians to come to peace using all means necessary.

  4. With a new President (see #1) repair the damage Bush. caused with our allies. Regain their trust and support. Regain the trust and support and build allies in the middle east.

  5. Re-Focus all efforts on hunting down Al-Qaeda. This can only be done via our allies cracking down, arresting, and eliminating radical islamic fundamentalism.

39

Wow, I finally understand the depth of your paranoia.

So basically the war on terror is a “success” without having to do much at all. That’s convenient. I might also add that the War on Terror will be a success when it keep all apples falling towards the earth(“Thank god we have that war on terrorism, or we’d all float out into space!”)

I think Dubya’s goals are much closer to your second offering. I doubt we’ll achieve that until our rights finally have dissappeared and another 30-40 countries become US territories.

40

It is obvious that even though this is the Great Debates, certain people try to get cheap snipes in, without actually stooping to the level practiced in the Pit. I assert that you are one of those people.

Unless you are clairvoyant, you shouldn’t make assumptions about my level of knowledge regarding Europe. As for googling those 4 terms which you provided, I am well aware of them, and they change nothing about my statement which I made about Europe. Europe has been pretty lucky up until now, as far as mass scale, Islamic terrorist attacks are concerned. It is only a matter of time, as various countries have already been threatened with attack. One can draw certain paralells with the pre World War II era, and the situation today. Appeasement is one word that comes to mind.

Certain countries in Europe are not part of the solution, but rather a part of the problem. France refuses to even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group. I liken the behaviour of certain European countries to be outright cowardly and naive, if not downright evil.

I stated that I believe that certain places in Europe will have some not so minor problems in the future, with Islamic terrorism, which obviously got your knickers all worked up. Do you not acknowledge that certain European countries have been threatened with attack ? May I ask, why then should we not take these threats seriously, ? I have valid grounds for making my statement regarding Europe, based on the actions and words of the terrorists themselves.