[Spliffdaddy]

The German Interior Minister, Otto Schily, said that if it were confirmed that the Madrid bombings had an "Islamic background" then it would mean a new level of threat in Europe.

doh.

I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.

Terrorists blowin up westerners left and right and somehow, still today, the Germans have fancied themselves as being non-western because they don't have troops in Iraq.

Newsflash:

The twin towers fell before we liberated Iraq.


edit:

it doesn't matter whether you love or hate the U.S. - you're a westerner either way.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You cannot beat guerillas, except by changing conditions, thus removing their reasons for fighting and eroding their popular support.

And again, it is incredibly stupid of you to assume that organized terrorism didn't exist prior to 9/11. The rest of the world HAS been working together for DECADES, in a "Coalition", if you will.

The fact that they weren't stupid enought to incite even more hatred by liberally bombing unrelated countries merely means that they didn't make the headlines over in Three-Word Country.

-s*

Well the coordinated efforts up until now have been without much success. The conditions that breed terrorists have not been uprooted. We have to Think Different(tm)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And again, it is incredibly stupid of you to assume that organized terrorism didn't exist prior to 9/11. The rest of the world HAS been working together for DECADES, in a "Coalition", if you will.

Yes, it was a coalition of police forces who watched terror cells at work but did nothing to stop them because they "hadn't done anything yet." It was a coalition that let Bin Laden escape from Sudan to Afghanistan, where his network operated with impunity even after he started bombing embassies, killing hundreds of African civilians. It's a coaltion that allowed Mosques in the West to be used as staging grounds for terror, but where no law enforcement or intelligence agency dared enter, for fears of being branded racist.

You call that a coaltion. I'd call it dangerous complacency.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You call that a coaltion. I'd call it dangerous complacency.

I wouldn't call anything a coaltion

I agree with you on that the old way to campaign against terrorists was rather toothless. Since 2000 the ways we use to combat terrorists is changing. You talk like there is no hope for intelligent and effective counter-terrorism. I disagree. I see things changing rapidly to combat terrorism more effectively. I also see the Bush administration realizing that their current way of dealing with terrorists isn't working as well as they'd have hoped. They are awfully silent these days.

[Spliffdaddy]

'anti-terrorist coalition' - from the folks that bring us 'peacekeepers' - but only after the fact. You can't keep what you don't have, after all.
Observers. As if a few more focused corneas will provide them some much-needed humility.

yeah boy. that'll fix it right up.



"Decisions concerning the eradication of terrorists are a lot easier to make when you compare the 83 cent cost of a 7.62mm cartridge with whatever the other choice is." - Spliffdaddy's truths #601

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, it was a coalition of police forces who watched terror cells at work but did nothing to stop them because they "hadn't done anything yet." It was a coalition that let Bin Laden escape from Sudan to Afghanistan, where his network operated with impunity even after he started bombing embassies, killing hundreds of African civilians. It's a coaltion that allowed Mosques in the West to be used as staging grounds for terror, but where no law enforcement or intelligence agency dared enter, for fears of being branded racist.

You call that a coaltion. I'd call it dangerous complacency.

Forgive me, but I seem to remember that the United Nations voted in favour of the use of military force against Afghanistan; a country that had PROVEN links to terrorism. How is that complacent?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I also see the Bush administration realizing that their current way of dealing with terrorists isn't working as well as they'd have hoped. They are awfully silent these days.

That's true.

You'd at least expect George W. to show up in front of the Spanish embassy with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner and give them a great speech on how the Madrid bombing means that the War on Terror is working and is hitting close to home, etc. etc., God bless America.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Forgive me, but I seem to remember that the United Nations voted in favour of the use of military force against Afghanistan; a country that had PROVEN links to terrorism. How is that complacent?

The complacency was before the attacks on 9/11. Afghanistan had proven links to terrorism for years before then.

We were complacent. But on 9/11 America (or most of it, at least) woke up. I don't think the same can be said for Europe. You yourself have argued repeatedly that terrorism is nothing but crime. That's complacency.

[voodoo]

Terrorism is a crime like war-crime is a crime.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Terrorism is a crime like war-crime is a crime.

That's just trite.

Crime is dealt with by police forces and judges. Wars are fought using all available weapons. Crime is dealt with reactively. Wars are won by going to the enemy.

It isn't the same. Deal with a war as nothing but a series of descreet criminal acts and you will lose. And deserve to for being blind to the obvious.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Crime is dealt with by police forces and judges. Wars are fought using all available weapons. Crime is dealt with reactively. Wars are won by going to the enemy.

Also irrelevant.

Crimes are acts commited against civilians that infringe on their rights given by society. That is what terrorism is.

A crime.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's just trite.

Crime is dealt with by police forces and judges. Wars are fought using all available weapons. Crime is dealt with reactively. Wars are won by going to the enemy.

It isn't the same. Deal with a war as nothing but a series of descreet criminal acts and you will lose. And deserve to for being blind to the obvious.

I don't know why you're arguing over how you should treat terrorism. Declaring 'war' on it hasn't shown any progress - quite the contrary in fact. The terrorists are still operating. There is no difference in the progress being made by those who treat it as a 'crime' and those who treat it as a 'war'. What the hell are you arguing over?! Terrorism is a problem that needs to be solved - arguing over how to classify it is utterly pointless.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
MADRID, Spain _�_Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (search), whose Socialist party won Spain's general elections, said Monday that he will recall Spain's 1,300 peacekeeping troops in Iraq by June 30.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114179,00.html

However, a party spokesman explained to The Associated Press that Zapatero sticks by his campaign condition that the 1,300 troops would stay if the United Nations (news - web sites) assumed control of the peacekeeping operation in Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news...spain_elections

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Osama bin Laden already won the second your administration used 9/11 as an excuse to liberate you from your rights.

Yeah, that sounds fine and dandy on a placard. Truth is, all my rights are intact. My movements and freedoms have not taken a dive since even before 9/11.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You cannot beat guerillas, except by changing conditions, thus removing their reasons for fighting and eroding their popular support.
-s*

Incorrect.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander of North Vietnamese forces in both their war against the French and the United States, is a distinctive authority on insurgency. His principals apply to Sunni Iraq today. First, create superior intelligence. Second, secure the loyalty of the people. Third, erode support for the war in the home country of your enemy by imposing unacceptable costs.

Giap divides guerilla warfare into three stages.

Stage One. Small scale operations.

Inflict casualties, court the local population. This stage is political and psychological and its goal is to drive a wedge between the enemy and the local population by provoking the enemy into doing things that alienate and harass the people in a manner that can be readily and quickly reported on television.



Stage Two. Integrated small and larger units.

Increase the tempo by drawing the enemy into ambushes and establisihing areas where the enemy cannot maneuver. Create the impression of opposition failure by attacking the enemy's isolated small forces with your intermediate forces. Exhaust the enemy through superior intelligence, mobility and stealth. Force the enemy into asymmetric battle that simultaneously drains his resources and creates extreme actions that generate hostility in the local population.



Stage Three. Conventional forces.

Large conventional forces are employed in battle against a demoralized enemy lacking support at home. Offer a cease fire as a way out and a token to the world of peaceful and reasonable intentions.


How to beat guerilla warfare?

The key is to catch the commanders and destroy the command and control system. The great weakness of the guerilla side is that the terrain does not allow for concealed movement and is, in fact, wide open to airpower attacks day and night. Thus, they can never assemble the forces needed to reach stage two. Unlike Viet Nam, there is no current sanctuary or source of re-supply and rest.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't know why you're arguing over how you should treat terrorism. Declaring 'war' on it hasn't shown any progress - quite the contrary in fact. The terrorists are still operating. There is no difference in the progress being made by those who treat it as a 'crime' and those who treat it as a 'war'. What the hell are you arguing over?! Terrorism is a problem that needs to be solved - arguing over how to classify it is utterly pointless.

Ah well I thought Simey was perhaps trying to defend the definitions and actions of the US administration.

I personally think terrorism is just that. Terrorism. Societies must deal with that phenomena in a way that works. I don't see the role of a military in it.. rather intelligence operations and undermining of the niches that breed terrorists.

The fear of fear is the only thing that is hurting the West.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
However, a party spokesman explained to The Associated Press that Zapatero sticks by his campaign condition that the 1,300 troops would stay if the United Nations (news - web sites) assumed control of the peacekeeping operation in Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news...spain_elections

Yes I realize that. It was in the article I linked.

The new Spanish administration seeks international peacekeeping in Iraq overseen by the UN.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't know why you're arguing over how you should treat terrorism. Declaring 'war' on it hasn't shown any progress - quite the contrary in fact. The terrorists are still operating. There is no difference in the progress being made by those who treat it as a 'crime' and those who treat it as a 'war'. What the hell are you arguing over?! Terrorism is a problem that needs to be solved - arguing over how to classify it is utterly pointless.

It's far from just a semantic argument. How you treat it defines your whole strategy. If it is just a crime problem, then you have to wait for each attack, pick up the body parts, decide which individuals were responsible, look the other way if anything points to having government involvement because you can't indict governments, or hold them responsible for anything that originates on their territory. Then anyone you catch gets the full panoply or criminal protections. If you used intelligence to find them, you can't use that evidence in court. If you made any other procedural errors, they go free -- as have essentially all of the al-Queda and supporters arrested in Europe since 9/11.

Under the crime model. you can't act against any terrorist unless you manage to catch them red-handed. That's very unlikely. So in reality, your crime approach is entirely reactive. You will never break up terrorist networks that way. All you can do is arrest a few pawns while the kings remain inviolate. That's the extent of the success of the crime model. It's fine if you don't mind living with terrorism. But it is incapable or reversing what was an escalating trend.

Nobody ever said the war on terror would be over in three years. It is far too early to declare victory, and certainly too early to declare defeat. But the crime approach was tried for 30 years and terrorism just became grander and grander. What started as pipe bombs became the destruction of whole city blocks -- destructive power that in the past only armies could wield. How much worse would it have to get before you will admit that the police-only approach was a failure?

[voodoo]

Not under the PATRIOT ACT crime model Simey. Then you can preemptively watch, search and detain likely terrorists.

Not that I like it one squat, I think there are better ways to deal with terrorism with the law enforcement, but that is what the US lawmakers thought would be a good idea.

I can take it then that you would like to see the PATRIOT ACT abolished

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's just trite.

Crime is dealt with by police forces and judges. Wars are fought using all available weapons. Crime is dealt with reactively. Wars are won by going to the enemy.

It isn't the same. Deal with a war as nothing but a series of descreet criminal acts and you will lose. And deserve to for being blind to the obvious.

"Taking it to the enemy," "Going to the enemy." You military boys just like playing with big toys. Driving tanks and shooting guns makes you feel like you're DOING something in a way that intelligence gathering doesn't. The truth is that there is no evidence that this is a better solution, that you don't know who the enemy is, or where to take it. It's as efficient as the Spanish people's demonstrations. It makes you feel good, it gives you an outlet, but it doesn't achieve much.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Not under the PATRIOT ACT crime model Simey. Then you can preemptively watch, search and detain likely terrorists.

Do you know what an FISA search warrant is?

The war model means you can use all tools according to circumstances. It doesn't mandate the use of any particular one. The crime model limits the tools you can use, and mandates a certain level of international non cooperation. That's why Europe screams about having armed guards on planes, screening passenger lists, terrorists in detention, and so on. You have never "got it." Even after Madrid, you still haven't.

As I said: denial. You think if you just ignore the nightmare it will just go away. Well, it's not going away. When are you going to start dealing with the reality?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If it is just a crime problem, then you have to wait for each attack, pick up the body parts, decide which individuals were responsible, look the other way if anything points to having government involvement because you can't indict governments, or hold them responsible for anything that originates on their territory.

That is utter rubbish. In most countries of the world preparing a terrorist attack is a crime that carries virtually the same sentence that a succesful attack carries. You can also be guilty of an "attempted" crime which carries similar penalties to succesful crimes.

In France the guys who were planning the attack on the US embassy in Paris were arrested after 9/11 and they all went to jail for life despite the fact that they never consumated their plans. Of course, because the French cops didn't go in all guns blazing when they discovered the plot, they monitored the cell for months and netted people at all levels of the chain of command in the operation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
That is utter rubbish. In most countries of the world preparing a terrorist attack is a crime that carries virtually the same sentence that a succesful attack carries. You can also be guilty of an "attempted" crime which carries similar penalties to succesful crimes.

The Hamburg police were watching the Hamburg cell. Fat lot of good it did. They even passed on the information to the FBI. Fat lot of good that did too. There were no arrests because the hijackers hadn't committed a crime yet. Until they started slitting the throats of the flight crew. By then it was too late.

This is a pattern you will see again and again until you take the organizations apart at the top. But the top wasn't sitting in an apartment in Hamburg. It was sitting safe and secure in Afghanistan even though he was under indictment and his face was on wanted posters throughout the world. He still may be sitting there, for all we know. But the police will never get him. If anyone does, it wil be a soldier or a smart bomb.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, that sounds fine and dandy on a placard. Truth is, all my rights are intact. My movements and freedoms have not taken a dive since even before 9/11.

Would you like to bet that your opinion would change radically the second you *somehow* ended up on somebody's list and were legally detained for six months with no access to legal counsel or family, only to be released with nary an apology when it turned out you had no terrorist connections after all?

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I said: denial. You think if you just ignore the nightmare it will just go away. Well, it's not going away. When are you going to start dealing with the reality?

1972.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Would you like to bet that your opinion would change radically the second you *somehow* ended up on somebody's list and were legally detained for six months with no access to legal counsel or family, only to be released with nary an apology when it turned out you had no terrorist connections after all?

-s*

You mean, when I'm picked up after travelling to a war zone, Afghanistan, to take part in a jihad? Those people weren't picked up in Manchester, you know.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Incorrect.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander of North Vietnamese forces in both their war against the French and the United States, is a distinctive authority on insurgency. His principals apply to Sunni Iraq today.

That is all good and well - and an interesting read - but Sunni Iraq is, unfortunately, entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. Sunni Iraq had absolutely no involvement in terrorism until the US invaded.

I'm talking about terrorism. And I apologize if my use of the term "guerilla" led to confusion: I intended it to mean a small band of people striking out of the blue, in an unpredictable manner, at unpredictable locations.

In that light, the only point of yours that remains is the idea of capturing and/or destroying command and communications lines. That, however, is near impossible in a decentralized hydra that will regrow tenfold except, as I wrote, "by changing conditions, thus removing their reasons for fighting and eroding their popular support."

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean, when I'm picked up after travelling to a war zone, Afghanistan, to take part in a jihad? Those people weren't picked up in Manchester, you know.

I thought we were talking about the provisions of Homeland Security, not Guantanamo Bay.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
1972.

You mean after 1972. The German police screwed that one up royally, then let the terrorists go. It was Israel who finally dealt with them. They assassinated the surviving terrorists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean after 1972.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me then.

[skio]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you know what an FISA search warrant is?

The war model means you can use all tools according to circumstances. It doesn't mandate the use of any particular one. The crime model limits the tools you can use, and mandates a certain level of international non cooperation. That's why Europe screams about having armed guards on planes, screening passenger lists, terrorists in detention, and so on. You have never "got it." Even after Madrid, you still haven't.

As I said: denial. You think if you just ignore the nightmare it will just go away. Well, it's not going away. When are you going to start dealing with the reality?

So what you're saying is that Saddam was allowed to use Chemical weapins? Any tools allowed? They were at war remember.

Sorry to say this Simey, but you do come across as a hypocrite more times than not, and seem totally oblivious to your nations complicity in half of this stuff. Why don't any other nation go around the world as yours, crying democracy, adn so on. Why do you think these people are boming you, maybe stop interfering in the world, then the acts of terrorism wil stop, oh sorry, I forgot, you're country likes to have its hand in the middle of such things.

Look, if I was an Afghani, I'd be bominbg the **** out of you too, why not? You just invaded thier country for nor good reason, except ot say that they refused to hand over Bin laden, great, great reason.

The US just bend, and make up the rules as it goes along, but damn any nation who would do likewise.

[skio]

Amazes me how Britain just appeasd the IRA, and the loayalist forces in N. Ireland all these years, where was the invaison of Ireland for harbouring terorists? Where wss the bombing of suspected Irish militant groups? Nowhere, why? cause they are European Chrisitans, nothign else.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Hamburg police were watching the Hamburg cell. Fat lot of good it did. They even passed on the information to the FBI. Fat lot of good that did too. There were no arrests because the hijackers hadn't committed a crime yet. Until they started slitting the throats of the flight crew. By then it was too late.

This is a pattern you will see again and again until you take the organizations apart at the top. But the top wasn't sitting in an apartment in Hamburg. It was sitting safe and secure in Afghanistan even though he was under indictment and his face was on wanted posters throughout the world. He still may be sitting there, for all we know. But the police will never get him. If anyone does, it wil be a soldier or a smart bomb.

As I said, there's a reason you watch a cell before you take it out. You get much more information if you watch it for a while. I'm 100% in agreement with you on Afghanistan. I believe that international law needs to be used to pursue terrorists as well as national law. International law permits the invasion of a country that supports terrorism. You seem to think that it's one or the other. I believe that on the rare occassion, like Afghanistan, a war is necessary.

But there is an aspect of this whole argument that you're ignoring. That is that grand displays of violence have a habit of publicising terrorist ideology and they very often serve to emphasise the point the terrorists make. The WOT is an example. Al Qaeda's gripe is foreign interference in the Arab world. Sure 9/11 was the dramatic publicity stunt of the century, but the Bush's administration's approach has increased publicity and support for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In response to Al Qaeda's gripes, Bush has gone and interfered MORE in the Arab world. He's killed thousands of innocent Arabs thereby not only giving Arabs reason to hate him, but also publicising an organisation that seeks to channel that anger into terrorist activity. Criminal investigations are subtle, low key affairs that take out terrorists without making a huge fuss.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean after 1972. The German police screwed that one up royally, then let the terrorists go. It was Israel who finally dealt with them. They assassinated the surviving terrorists.

So they didn't get a fair trial? And you as a lawyer supports that?

And we call this a civilised world.....

[lil'babykitten]

er Simey, how exactly has the 'military' method been any more successful than the 'police' way? The Chief bastard himself is still on the loose, his organisation very much intact and in Cuba we have a base demonstrating one of the most flagrant abuses of human rights in recent history, with it's 'suspects' - whom haven't been charged with anything.
The only thing the 'military way' has achieved is loss of innocent civilian life in an attempt to bomb the terrorists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Troll:
Criminal investigations are subtle, low key affairs that take out terrorists without making a huge fuss.

...and don't win points on Fox News presidential approval ratings.

[skio]

Originally posted by Logic:
So they didn't get a fair trial? And you as a lawyer supports that?

And we call this a civilised world.....

Ah, but you forget that Simey lives in the States and is a Republican who must do his duty to his nation, depsiote his actions, adn virtually everything he says being utter garbage for those looking into the US.

tell you what, stop supporting Israel, get out of Saudi, and stop being hte hyporites that you are, adn I will guarantee that all Sialmmic terrorism wil lstop. Leave hem alone, and the ywil lelave you alone. Ah, but you can't, because in your pursuit of seekign out your natioan linterests, it involves royally screwing withj Arabic nations. and everyone else. The more you defend this, the more your actions seem desperate, adn then no-one believes you.

[theolein]

All this babbling about terrorism, guerilla warfare etc and how to win it yadda, yadda is tiring. If a group of guerilla fighters/insurgents have the support of the population it is nigh on impossible to win a war against them unless you're willing to go to the rather extreme measures that the Turks went to against the Armenians in 1915: genocide.

Terrorism in the country where it draws its support from is also extremely hard to beat. Terrorism a la Al Qaida, when they are not in their home country is easier to beat as they do not have the support of the majority of the populations where they operate with the exceptions of Indonesia, Pakistan to a certain extent. They always hide amongst immigrants from countries where their support is strong.

Examples of groups that had local support to a large or small extent: ETA, IRA, the ANC, the VietCong.

Conversly, if they have no or only little support in a country, both terrorists and insurgents will almost certainly lose. Examples are the German RAF and the Italian Red Brigades, who had support amongst left wing youngsters for some years but basically fell apart when the kids grew up.

No amount of hooyah high tech will win against an insurgency otherwise.

That is why thinking soldiers can win the war in Iraq without local support is a fallacy.

Ya basta!

[skio]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
er Simey, how exactly has the 'military' method been any more successful than the 'police' way? The Chief bastard himself is still on the loose, his organisation very much intact and in Cuba we have a base demonstrating one of the most flagrant abuses of human rights in recent history, with it's 'suspects' - whom haven't been charged with anything.
The only thing the 'military way' has achieved is loss of innocent civilian life in an attempt to bomb the terrorists.

Kitten, let's hold on for a second, let's assume the military model works. Now, by that reckoning, and by the rhetoric spewed out by the US about freedom for those under tyranny, how about Simey agreeing that Palestinains can use any means neccesary to gain their freedom. How about Suadan using any means neccesary to destroy all Christian terrorists in that nation who are causing untild damage to the majority Muslim population.

How about the national interests of Saudi, and the majority of the poulation who want America off thier soil. Why not support a revolt like hte one in Iraq? why not back the majority Saudis who want democracy, an Islamic nation, and if they don't get this, then let them use military might to achieve it, and if anyone backs the Saudi Government, then they too are a target, just liek the reasonsing behind bombing the Afghanis, ie. bomb the Americans supporting the Saudi Royal families.

[Spliffdaddy]

naturally, the USA does things differently than the 34th, 68th, and 71st ranked countries around the globe.

holy cow...perhaps that's what makes us #1.

[skio]

Originally posted by theolein:

That is why thinking soldiers can win the war in Iraq without local support is a fallacy.

Ya basta!

Yup, very true. Now look at ireland, over twenty years of terrorism in both Ireland and the UK, what happens? The Brisiths govenment give in, and under the guise of the IRA handing in weapons, they basically got what they wanted, elections. The IRA would NEVR have stopped the bombing capaign if the British hadn;t done this. Lok at ETA, same thing, they will always continue, and now look at the muslim naitons, they will NEVER stop fighting back, why> it's their land being bombed to hell, their nations being destoryed, and some think that doing htis will somehow pacify them and bring about peace? Those peopel are utterly ignorant of history, and are purposfuly deceitful in their rhetoric for their own nationalisticagenda.

[skio]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
naturally, the USA does things differently than the 34th, 68th, and 71st ranked countries around the globe.

holy cow...perhaps that's what makes us #1.

because they ar a newly convert to democracy and the world arena. like a new convert to a religion, they'll go around preaching the gosepl, then one day realsie that what the ywere preaching, wasn't what anyone wanted to hear, and will be ignored.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You seem to think that it's one or the other. I believe that on the rare occassion, like Afghanistan, a war is necessary.

It's not one or the other. Even in a conventional war, the police have a role. So using the war model allows the use of armed forces where appropriate, and the use of police, where appropriate.

If you define terrorism as a criminal matter, you define away your ability to use the military and related means, such as intelligence agencies. That's foolish.

In fact, you seem to agree with this. You say that you support the use of military force in "on the rare occasion, like Afghanistan." That begs the question, would you have supported the use of military force in Afghanistan before 9/11? Say, if you had received intelligence information that 9/11 was going to happen?

****************

I want to keep this separate, because I'd like you to answer that question, if you wouldn't mind.

You mention interfering more in the Middle East, contrary to what al-Queda wanted us to do as a result of 9/11: damn right. They push, we push back harder. Like I said, 9/11 backfired for al-Queda. And notice where the attacks have not been since then.

Your approach is appeasement precisely because your insitinct is to give them what they want in order to avoid more attacks. That's the very definition of appeasement.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
naturally, the USA does things differently than the 34th, 68th, and 71st ranked countries around the globe.

holy cow...perhaps that's what makes us #1.

Do u have a link to the list?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Do u have a link to the list?

www.hillbillytechnologies.com

[skio]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I want to keep this separate, because I'd like you to answer that question, if you wouldn't mind.

You mention interfering more in the Middle East, contrary to what al-Queda wanted us to do as a result of 9/11: damn right. They push, we push back harder. Like I said, 9/11 backfired for al-Queda. And notice where the attacks have not been since then.

Your approach is appeasement precisely because your insitinct is to give them what they want in order to avoid more attacks. That's the very definition of appeasement.

Why not address the causes of why AL-Qaeeda, or another new Islamic group would commit such acts>? Ever wonder why? Do you really believ what Fox tells you that these people are jealous of you? If so, then you are blid my friend, if not, the nsort out the causes, and they will stop.

WOnder why there has been no bombings in the uK by the IRA? Appeasement, that we gave them what they wanted in the end, no bombings. Give Al-Qaeeda what they want, which is justified by the way, IMO, then it will stop. Don't stand there and act like you are the ones being done the injustice, your nation is mostly responsbile for half this crud.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
www.hillbillytechnologies.com

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by skio:
Why not address the causes of why AL-Qaeeda, or another new Islamic group would commit such acts>? Ever wonder why? Do you really believ what Fox tells you that these people are jealous of you? If so, then you are blid my friend, if not, the nsort out the causes, and they will stop.

WOnder why there has been no bombings in the uK by the IRA? Appeasement, that we gave them what they wanted in the end, no bombings. Give Al-Qaeeda what they want, which is justified by the way, IMO, then it will stop. Don't stand there and act like you are the ones being done the injustice, your nation is mostly responsbile for half this crud.

Neville Chamberlain.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Neville Chamberlain.

Mr. Chamberlain went and visited Adolf. He negotiated with him and gave in to his demands in exchange for the promise of peace in the future.

He's got nothing to do with this discussion.

[Developer]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
The only thing the 'military way' has achieved is loss of innocent civilian life in an attempt to bomb the terrorists.

Also the loss of $80 billion. Money, that arguably would have saved more lifes when spent in the "police way".