General discussion

Locked

How do we win the war against terror?

By drowningnotwaving ·
Here are some starting points:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Criticisms_of_the_.22War_on_Terrorism.22

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/5865710/

I'll leave it up to Max to redress any balance issue. I wasn't aiming to push one way or the other, just start a discussion if anyone cares.

But there is no doubt a huge element of people around the world that, for whatever reason (and I assume there are many), want to attack other people's basic way of life, their freedoms, destroy those ways and freedoms and change their enemy into beleiving in their own way.

I wasn't trying to establish a balance either way, just ask some questions:

How do we fight the war?

How do we win? Is that possible, or (unlike an absolute victory) should winning be measured in degrees of effectiveness?

Do traditional military methods play a part and if so what? Do they further the cause "for victory" or possibly against it?

At what point can diplomacy come in? Or is there effectively no point where it can prove useful, due to fundamental differences between the parties?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

19 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

worldnetdaily

by betterhands In reply to Terror is a tactic

checked out your link. not a good site to reference if you're trying to make a serious, objective point.

Collapse -

Personal for Max

by DelbertPGH In reply to Terror is a tactic

This will be dull reading for most people, because I'm going to argue about the facts and logic behind a magazine article of Max?s. I think the term "Islamo-Fascism" is nonsense.

Joseph Farah (of WorldNetDaily) starts from the supposed fact that Saddam supported al-Qaida for a full decade up to the year 2000, based on a book by one Yossef Bodansky. I've never heard of this Bodansky or his evidence before now. Bush, Cheney, and company were so desperate for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure they would have brought up this guy and his evidence if there was any chance his story would stand. I?ve just got to conclude it didn?t. If Cheney wouldn?t bite, it must be worthless, because that man would swallow just about any crazy tale. And without an Al-Qaida/Iraq link, half of Farah?s argument has nothing to stand on.

Saddam did support terrorists for a while, mostly Palestinians fighting Israel. Looks to me like he did it in a half-&ssed way, like he was trying to get prestige within the Arab world, more than he wanted terrorists to conduct his national policy for him. Saddam always wanted to be the international big shot, to be a pan-Arab leader. But he never did support Al-Qaida, and Al-Qaida never supported him. Al-Qaida?s main enemies in the world were not the U.S., but secular Arab leaders. Al-Qaida figured the infidels could all go wallow in their own filth; what they wanted was an Islamic state of historic purity that would unite Arabs and restore Islam to the glory of the 10th century. Secular Arabs wanted to pursue their own petty dreams, imitating vile Westerners and their godless oversexed society, and leading the Arab people further astray. Al-Qaida wanted to redeem Muslims, and in particular Arabs, and more particularly, Sunni Arabs.

It?s Farah?s cultural egotism that makes him think that hating America was the most important thing on both Al-Qaida?s and Saddam?s minds. They were driven by their own purposes, and they didn?t need to look across the Atlantic Ocean for motivation. America didn?t unite these parties.

Farah goes on to say fascism is a form of socialism. There are similarities, but bigger differences. The biggest similarity is the way both try to exert total control over all phases of society, because they both want to shape a new breed of man, and they are both suspicious of any competing power within society. However, this doesn?t mean that fascism and socialism are identical. Fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini, and by imitator movements between the wars in France, Britain, Spain, and the United States, saw the West having lost its way and grown pathetic and weak under the administration of chicken-hearted governments, and its wealth dissipated by rich-living elites who drank and gambled and wasted society?s riches on personal pleasure. The argument had some force when all around there was massive unemployment, hyper inflation, and a worldwide depression. It was fun to blame people, and that was part of the fascist charm. The fascist prescription for national troubles was a strong nation, strong national purpose, people made strong by patriotism and a sense of national mission, and a charismatic leader who could make it all feel alive. Members of fascist parties became members of uniformed paramilitary groups, which made the members feel like they were doing something, and were impressive political symbols that were also tools of formidable political power, wielded by the leader. (Brown Shirts in Germany, Black Shirts in Italy and Britain, Silver Shirts in the U.S.)

The communists were much more interested in building a new man without greed or self-interest. Citizens? loyalty was ideally owed to a political-economic philosophy, not to a state. Private ownership of businesses was outlawed; under fascism, private property was never illegal, though business owners were often given close orders on how they had to run aspects of their business. The two movements had little in common but their total control philosophy of government. Both were hostile toward tradition, though fascism glorified many peasant ways, believing they were patriotic expressions of the people. Both were very suspicious of religion, and exercised tight control over churches, because they knew priests could create political resistance to their broad social agendas.

Islamists are interested in God, and in saving Islamic mankind by putting it back on the true path. Islam holds that religion belongs in every part of society, and that the state should govern by religious law. Mohammed was himself a businessman (a long-distance trader), but believed that business had a social mission, and also had to operate within the bounds of God?s plan. Mohammed also believed in jihad, struggle, but the big jihad was each man?s struggle against his own godlessness; the little jihad was the armed conflict with infidels, which was usually seen in defensive terms. (The terrorists we fight generally ignore the main part of the message in favor of armed struggle.) The ideal society, church, and government is seen as what existed in Arabia 1400 years ago.

Fascism generally puts a godless state above man, as an inspiration to him, that he may glorify it and himself by his sacrifice. Islamic crazies look backward over a thousand years for holy legends, which will redeem man and glorify God (and, in the interests of defending God and his people and the realm of the believers, lead them to war where they can be sacrificed in the purposes of God.) Both Islamic extremists and fascists think it is glorious going off the deep end in the name of their beliefs. So have done patriots and believers in many causes for the whole history of humankind. It doesn?t make them all fascists, though.

Collapse -

Keys to winning

by mjd420nova In reply to How do we win the war aga ...

First, on Sept. 11, 2001, I would have closed the borders and stop all international flights. Get that fence and security zone built. Then think about how to stop those who are here illegally from getting out without proof of who they are. Next, implement a national ID program for those who must exit or enter the country. Amnesty can only be effective after the borders are sealed. Sign them up, document them and their dependants, photos, DNA and fingerprints. Then give them a social security card and let them start paying into the system they have sucked the life out of. Only then should we think about what liberties will be restored after such an event. And to think that we could have and should have stopped those who perpetrated the attacks before they actually happened.

Collapse -

That's the war on Mexicans

by DelbertPGH In reply to Keys to winning

Clearly you'd rather fight a war against immigration than against terrorism, just as Bush would rather fight a war against Iraq than as something as difficult to grapple as terror.

Collapse -

Waste of time money and man power

by jmgarvin In reply to Keys to winning

A) The wall is stupid. If you live in a border state (like I do), you are well aware there are tunnels and easy geographical entry points.

B) The National ID program is pointless. How do you tag illegals?

C) How do you get illegals to "sign up" and offer their dependants up along with photos and DNA?

What you are suggesting is unrealistic. Rather than pay millions into pointless bureaucracy, why don't on real solutions?

Collapse -

What? Who? Which? How? When? Where?

by onbliss In reply to How do we win the war aga ...

What kinds
We need to list the different kinds of terrorisms.
Who
Then list the different groups indulging in the various kinds of terrorism.
Which
Then prioritize which kinds and groups we are going to tackle and reduce the terrorist activities
How
How is it going to be done? How are the domestic ones going to be addressed? How are the international ones going to be addressed? What sort of effort is required?
When & Where
For international terrorism, for each kinds and groups, need to list when and where the terrorism is going to be fought.

To summarize in two words - "Improve our Understanding". Yeah I cheated it is three words. We need to improve our understanding on nature and reason for terrorisms, and then use the optimum tool.

2 cents.

Collapse -

Don't know much but I do know this

by drowningnotwaving In reply to How do we win the war aga ...

The biggest message I get is that we need a lot more intelligence on what it is we're trying to do, to whom and how.

But I do know this:

* Irrespective of the reason, or the strategy currently existing, I think it is a fair comment to say that there is a lack of communication about that strategy and desired objective, to Joe and Joanne Public.

As an example:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20759846-2702,00.html

This seems to me to be a "hope" that something doesn't happen, rather than a clear strategy about why it should and how we'll all benefit.

And I am fairly sure that this is not an isolated example. Most of the communication seems to be around the "keep on sticking with us just 'because' ".

It seems that (with me included/jointly-accused) we can talk a lot about the why or why not we should or shouldn't be in Iraq at all, what we do/don't do with the prisoners or at what stage do we decide the govt has the credentials and resources to look after themselves, whatever that may mean.

But it does seem clear that there hasn't been a commensurate effort spent on educating / assuring the population that there is a clear strategy (albeit even an evolving strategy).

And it seems that the battle for the 'hearts and minds', so critical to the long-term effort, troop support and commitment, is reasonably floored if it hasn't started and stayed well at home, wherever that is.

Leadership, I think it's called. But with substance not just the cheer-squad.

Collapse -

give me your opinion on this topic,,,

by haseeb khan In reply to How do we win the war aga ...

america should win the war against terror or not

Back to Windows Forum
19 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02

Related Discussions

Related Forums