The Iraq thread 4

[ruff 102]

"Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist"

so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also?

No, it's like saying that if a cop kills a killer, he's a killer too.

btw, are you saying that it is legal for cops to kill criminals?

there are REASONS didnt u read the Whole post!!!

EXAMPLE hostage situation cop kills criminal to prevent HOSTAGES gettign killed!!!!!!!!! LEGAL!!!!!!!

u just like select and paste

and yes it is legal for cops to kill criminals in the act of self defense and to save lives!!!!!!!!! there are MANY reasons thats one example

that was my point so read my WHOLE POST next time.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]well at least i agree on some points on that. but they don't intend to kill purposely. and who knows, they say that their innocent civillians but they could also be supporters (bath party) in those certain areas like the sunni triangle.

WTF? So what. So now we can kill anyone who MIGHT be a supporter of some idealogy that is our enemy du jour? YOU might be a "terrorist" for all I know. I guess I should drop a 500lb bomb on your neighborhood also eh?

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Should the FBI have killed Timothy McVeigh's family as a preemptive maneuver to prevent any further forms of domestic terrorism?"

Quote[/b] ] believe u SHOULD do it if u could PREVENT him from doing it from the first place, if they knew it was going to happen or who he was before the incident

 

[miles teg 1]

Um...    You guys might want to read this article:

Quote[/b] ]

'Salvador Option' mooted for Iraq

   By Tom Gibb

BBC, South America

Jan. 27, '05

With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

The US colonel in charge at the close of El Salvador's civil war was a tall man with a shaven head, which, as a colleague put it, "looked as if it would repel cannonballs".

I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.

He was, he said, going to write it all up in case of another such war.

So it has been with little surprise that I have read articles coming out of Washington in recent weeks, with US officials talking about a "Salvador Option" in Iraq, not only for democracy-building, but also for a more aggressive campaign to eliminate Iraqi insurgents and their supporters.

Brutal dictatorships

El Salvador was the last long counter-insurgency war fought by the United States.

It is one of a collection of small republics in the US backyard which, during the Cold War, Washington considered too strategically important to fall to communism.

For decades the US propped up brutal dictatorships. But repression created fertile ground for Marxist guerrillas.

So in the 1980s, the US belatedly switched to democracy-building to stop the revolutions sweeping the region.

President Reagan promised to draw the line against further communist expansion in El Salvador.

There followed a bloody 12-year stalemate between the US-funded and organised Salvadoran army, and Cuban-backed guerrillas.

Between one and two percent of the population - more than 70,000 people - died.

Terror tactics

I still find it extraordinary that US officials like the colonel, saw this as a success.

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.

Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.

But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.

Nor is success for a Salvador-style death squad democracy guaranteed.

Horrific memories

Constituent assembly elections, like those taking place in Iraq, were held in 1982.

But the war continued for another decade with the rebels rebuilding their strength.

In November 1989, they launched an all-out offensive to win, taking over suburbs of the capital for 10 days.

Fearing defeat, the US-backed army set out to kill not only guerrillas but also those they viewed as sympathisers.

Of the memories of death and mutilation I witnessed in El Salvador, the sight of six Jesuit priests, their cook and her 16-year-old daughter with their brains blown across the neatly cropped lawn of their house, is the one that still haunts the most.

They were among the country's leading intellectuals, and I knew them well.

They were murdered by an elite US-trained unit, part of an extermination list approved by the high command, a dirty war taken to the limit.

The failure of US strategy in El Salvador is perhaps measured by its inability in 12 years to capture or kill a single top guerrilla commander in a country only the size of Belgium.

In the end, years more bloodshed and a potentially humiliating US defeat were only prevented by the Soviet collapse, which pulled the rug from under the guerrillas' feet.

George Bush Snr called in the United Nations to mediate peace and sort out the mess.

It seems a strange model to choose now for Iraq.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Thursday, 27 January, 2005, at 1100 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go....595.stm

Published: 2005/01/27 11:31:29 GMT

© BBC MMV

The fact of the matter is that such tactics don't work in a enviornment where insurgents have immense popular support.

It only grows when you try to use those kinds of brutal tactics.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Ares1978 0]

"Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist"

so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also?

No, it's like saying that if a cop kills a killer, he's a killer too.

btw, are you saying that it is legal for cops to kill criminals?

there are REASONS didnt u read the Whole post!!!

EXAMPLE hostage situation cop kills criminal to prevent HOSTAGES gettign killed!!!!!!!!! LEGAL!!!!!!!

u just like select and paste

and yes it is legal for cops to kill criminals in the act of self defense and to save lives!!!!!!!!! there are MANY reasons thats one example

that was my point so read my WHOLE POST next time.

Yes, I read the whole post and there are only EXCUSES. You know, terrorists use the exact same ones.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to act on them if, for example, the US is? A terrorist can do a lot less damage than an army.

So what you are saying now, is that it is ok for the cops to kill the criminal's completely innocent family in order to get the hostages free? Why not start killing the hostages as well? He can't demand anything if you kill them. Why not take a couple of bulldozers to his home town and level it just to make an example.

Is a person a terrorist if he resorts to terrorism? Yes or no?

[ruff 102]

"Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist"

so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also?

No, it's like saying that if a cop kills a killer, he's a killer too.

btw, are you saying that it is legal for cops to kill criminals?

there are REASONS didnt u read the Whole post!!!

EXAMPLE hostage situation cop kills criminal to prevent HOSTAGES gettign killed!!!!!!!!! LEGAL!!!!!!!

u just like select and paste

and yes it is legal for cops to kill criminals in the act of self defense and to save lives!!!!!!!!! there are MANY reasons thats one example

that was my point so read my WHOLE POST next time.

Yes, I read the whole post and there are only EXCUSES. You know, terrorists use the exact same ones.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to act on them if, for example, the US is? A terrorist can do a lot less damage than an army.

So what you are saying now, is that it is ok for the cops to kill the criminal's completely innocent family in order to get the hostages free? Why not start killing the hostages as well? He can't demand anything if you kill them. Why not take a couple of bulldozers to his home town and level it just to make an example.

Is a person a terrorist if he resorts to terrorism? Yes or no?

it could be used as a THREAT

e.g. u start killing hostages we start killing your family

like what happened to PABLO ESCOBAR

he halted his attacks against civillians once the government claimed to protect his family from his enemies

and i wasnt implying it on being used in a urban civilliased environment where the government and policing works

im talking about a warzone here, where everyday a person gets killed.

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]"Should the FBI have killed Timothy McVeigh's family as a preemptive maneuver to prevent any further forms of domestic terrorism?"

Quote[/b] ] believe u SHOULD do it if u could PREVENT him from doing it from the first place, if they knew it was going to happen or who he was before the incident

 

USE IT AS A THREAT

if they knew who he was before he committed it, threaten him, before the incident not after

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]well at least i agree on some  points on that.  but they don't intend to kill purposely. and who knows, they say that their innocent civillians but they could also be supporters (bath party) in those certain areas like the sunni triangle.

WTF? So what. So now we can kill anyone who MIGHT be a supporter of some idealogy that is our enemy du jour? YOU might be a "terrorist" for all I know. I guess I should drop a 500lb bomb on your neighborhood also eh?  

im not saying all of them killed by accidents are terrorists

"So now we can kill anyone who MIGHT be a supporter of some idealogy that is our enemy du jour?"

NO

but SOME who knowingly help and assissts in deaths of people yes

look at all the iraqi soldiers killed while off duty

SOME people in the neighbourhood certainly back up terrorists or are terrorists to know where they live and if u HELP someone get killed knowingly then u shouldnt expect less of a response

why u name calling?

[ruff 102]

and no iam not a terrorist

iam not also a full blown u.s. supporter

but i do believe if someone is not playing by the rules, then y should u also?

[ruff 102]

So what you are saying now, is that it is ok for the cops to kill the criminal's completely innocent family in order to get the hostages free? Why not start killing the hostages as well? He can't demand anything if you kill them. Why not take a couple of bulldozers to his home town and level it just to make an example.

Is a person a terrorist if he resorts to terrorism? Yes or no?

no, if he uses it against terrorists

and my example of cops i never said to start killing criminals familys

im talking of a WARZONE, i was using a cops example vs criminal to justfy the killing of terrorists to save lives

"Is a person a terrorist if he resorts to terrorism? Yes or no?"

AND no, if he uses it against terrorists

onto civillians yes

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]Actually yes. Even if the police officer was defending himself, there is still an investigation. If the cop kills a criminal because it is a criminal, the cop then has broken the law has he not? That makes him a criminal.

thats why there is an ivestigation to RULE THAT, so u can't say his a criminal before the investigation and trial is completed

and there are REASONS why e.g. self defense and save someone elses life,

and im talking about a WARZONE HERE where a couple of people die and get injured everyday not in a civilised working society and government

the only reason why i used the cop example is to justify the killing of terrorist to SAVE lives.

You seem to labor under the delusion that "terrorists" stay in neighborhoods labeled "Terrorist Neighborhood" or in camps that are easy to find with signs pointing the way. "Terrorists" almost always are a part of the populace (ever wonder why they wear masks alot?). In order to "use terror on terrorists" you would have to either A) have definitive intelligence/proof of a "terrorists" identity and/or location or B)use terror on the very populace in which the "terrorist" is hiding, in effect, making you a "terrorist," as has been pointed out

my answer is A

and no to B, i never said yes populace

Israel seems to think so also. It has not helped their situation much has it? The more hardline a government becomes, the more hardline the "terrorist" becomes.

As stated above, there is ample evidence that taking a hardline stance with "terrorists" only brings about more terror and death (again...look at Israel). Negotiation, as with any fighting force, can bring about an end. Again look at Israel, where Sharon himself today said that "conditions are ripe for a historic breakthrough." How? Because both sides drew back from their hardline stance

i believe peace talks are results from the elimination of high ranking terrorists and israel moving it's borders back to it's original place. killing the enemy and doing what theyre supposed to. they never stopped killing the terrorists till the terrorist stopped first

AND

so your saying terrorists should get what they want?

half the time all their demands are unreasonable

Afghanistan? what were they supposed to do there? cop the blow and fall to the demands of bin laden?

[ruff 102]

Um...    You guys might want to read this article:

Quote[/b] ]

'Salvador Option' mooted for Iraq

   By Tom Gibb

BBC, South America

Jan. 27, '05

With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

The US colonel in charge at the close of El Salvador's civil war was a tall man with a shaven head, which, as a colleague put it, "looked as if it would repel cannonballs".

I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.

He was, he said, going to write it all up in case of another such war.

So it has been with little surprise that I have read articles coming out of Washington in recent weeks, with US officials talking about a "Salvador Option" in Iraq, not only for democracy-building, but also for a more aggressive campaign to eliminate Iraqi insurgents and their supporters.

Brutal dictatorships

El Salvador was the last long counter-insurgency war fought by the United States.

It is one of a collection of small republics in the US backyard which, during the Cold War, Washington considered too strategically important to fall to communism.

For decades the US propped up brutal dictatorships. But repression created fertile ground for Marxist guerrillas.

So in the 1980s, the US belatedly switched to democracy-building to stop the revolutions sweeping the region.

President Reagan promised to draw the line against further communist expansion in El Salvador.

There followed a bloody 12-year stalemate between the US-funded and organised Salvadoran army, and Cuban-backed guerrillas.

Between one and two percent of the population - more than 70,000 people - died.

Terror tactics

I still find it extraordinary that US officials like the colonel, saw this as a success.

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.

Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.

But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.

Nor is success for a Salvador-style death squad democracy guaranteed.

Horrific memories

Constituent assembly elections, like those taking place in Iraq, were held in 1982.

But the war continued for another decade with the rebels rebuilding their strength.

In November 1989, they launched an all-out offensive to win, taking over suburbs of the capital for 10 days.

Fearing defeat, the US-backed army set out to kill not only guerrillas but also those they viewed as sympathisers.

Of the memories of death and mutilation I witnessed in El Salvador, the sight of six Jesuit priests, their cook and her 16-year-old daughter with their brains blown across the neatly cropped lawn of their house, is the one that still haunts the most.

They were among the country's leading intellectuals, and I knew them well.

They were murdered by an elite US-trained unit, part of an extermination list approved by the high command, a dirty war taken to the limit.

The failure of US strategy in El Salvador is perhaps measured by its inability in 12 years to capture or kill a single top guerrilla commander in a country only the size of Belgium.

In the end, years more bloodshed and a potentially humiliating US defeat were only prevented by the Soviet collapse, which pulled the rug from under the guerrillas' feet.

George Bush Snr called in the United Nations to mediate peace and sort out the mess.

It seems a strange model to choose now for Iraq.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Thursday, 27 January, 2005, at 1100 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go....595.stm

Published: 2005/01/27 11:31:29 GMT

© BBC MMV

The fact of the matter is that such tactics don't work in a enviornment where insurgents have immense popular support.

It only grows when you try to use those kinds of brutal tactics.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

the only popular support i really see is the sunnis

i never said terror for the entire populace

but people who help kill innocent people why shouldnt they expect the same??? for me that is.

also this is a different war, insurgents/terrorists yes, but communists/marxism no. who knows what would have happened if the soviet uninon won on communism.

i really would like to think u could talk to terrorists but u can't. the only special situation i see is the israel and palestinian conflict. the ACTUAL government of palestine talk to its groups to disarm since their in the same country and and once disarmed they no longer are terrorists. the reason also i believe is that theyre seeing alot of blood on their side of the fence and sharon moving its settlements since they killed alot of high ranking terrorists.

i don't believe terror on populace, but terror for terrorists and the collaborators who CAUSE deaths of civillians.

AND to all, i respect all your opinions. but my opinion is my opinion, im not saying im right nor do i want to change yours, i just believe why play by the rules when the otherside is not and winning!

that was a very good article though

here is one about the same incident http://www.thewitness.org/agw/mulligan012804.html

also i will not post my opinions here anymore for a long time since my opninon triggers alot of heated arguments, ill just posts some articles

again this is my opinion, im not saying im right nor do i want to change anyone elses.

well at least i hope iraq gets better after the election. i think everyone wants that.

[EiZei 0]

So what you are saying now, is that it is ok for the cops to kill the criminal's completely innocent family in order to get the hostages free? Why not start killing the hostages as well? He can't demand anything if you kill them. Why not take a couple of bulldozers to his home town and level it just to make an example.

Is a person a terrorist if he resorts to terrorism? Yes or no?

no, if he uses it against terrorists

Since when did the immediate family of a terrorist qualify as terrorists? That's EXCATLY the same tactics terrorists are using, hit anyone defenceless who associates with your target. Im sure that Saddam using the same techniques as you to quell resistance worked to some degree but at what price?

It's been a goddamn twilight zone after 9/11, people have started making excuses for things that would have been abso-fuckin-lutly out of question before, like torture or killing civilians.

[Baphomet 0]

Personally. I see a problem with even just threatening the families of terrorist operatives. The first being that it's the wrong thing to do. That's the first step in a downward slope towards committing terrorist acts in the name of "freedom".

Secondly. I really don't think it would work. I think you could probably kill the family of a known terrorist and nobody would even offer information (or perhaps some of them don't even know? What then?). These people are bound by a doctrine of beliefs that goes beyond threat of violence or bribes. By threatening them you would simply lower public opinion even more amongst the moderate Iraqis and muslims around the world if it was ever discovered.

The El Salvador option is not feasible in my opinion. Yes. Currently it seems a fair amount of opposition particularly in the terror groups are Sunni. However if you specifically start targeting Sunnis that will have a ripple effect worldwide.

The terrorists are usually deeply religious and I don't think their zealousness can be daunted. They'll either use that as bad PR, or in the case of terror groups steel their resolve to fight harder and perform more depraved acts.

I still think these hardline terrorist cells like Ansar Al Sunnah have become essentially a death worshipping sect. They're beyond simply scaring into submission.

[python3 0]

yes, lets not forget the fact that 90% of the world muslim poulace is sunni. It would not go down very well with all of them. You can expect retaliatory attacks against shi'ite and kurdish minorites in neighboring arab countries. Not to mention an influx of foreign fighters to aide their sunni brethren.

Besides baphomet is right. If you kill a terrorists family, will the terrorist stop? nope, he probably couldnt be happier for their family as they get a spot in paradise. You have to undertsand, this life means nothing to them, it is the afterlife that is key. You fight to live and they fight to die. Dont underestimate their zeal and willingness to win. They wont backdown. Unfortunately the US made the mistake of invading their country.

[miles teg 1]

the only popular support i really see is the sunnis

i never said terror for the entire populace

but people who help kill innocent people why shouldnt they expect the same??? for me that is.

also this is a different war, insurgents/terrorists yes, but communists/marxism no. who knows what would have happened if the soviet uninon won on communism.

i really would like to think u could talk to terrorists but u can't. the only special situation i see is the israel and palestinian conflict. the ACTUAL government of palestine talk to its groups to disarm since their in the same country and and once disarmed they no longer are terrorists. the reason also i believe is that theyre seeing alot of blood on their side of the fence and sharon moving its settlements since they killed alot of high ranking terrorists.

i don't believe terror on populace, but terror for terrorists and the collaborators who CAUSE deaths of civillians.

AND to all, i respect all your opinions. but my opinion is my opinion, im not saying im right nor do i want to change yours, i just believe why play by the rules when the otherside is not and winning!  

that was a very good article though

here is one about the same incident http://www.thewitness.org/agw/mulligan012804.html

also i will not post my opinions here anymore for a long time since my opninon triggers alot of heated arguments, ill just posts some articles

again this is my opinion, im not saying im right nor do i want to change anyone elses.

well at least i hope iraq gets better after the election. i think everyone wants that.

That article was very interesting.  Note that it claims that ex-SF guys were fighting for the Salvadoran rebels.  This is not surprising.  The war there was absolutely horrific.  Both sides did commit attrocities, but the government forces by far was responsible for the bulk of the attrocities and often targeted labor union leaders, clergy, university students with leftist leanings, and pretty much anyone who even hinted at sympathising with the rebels.  I can understand why some ex-SF believed it was their duty to fight against oppression and injustice.  American politicians labeled the rebels there as "commies" to scare Americans and while they were most definitely Marxists/socialists, they were no threat to America and were not against democracy.   They were only a threat to US corporate interests in the region.

In this civil war, people simply DID NOT PLAY BY THE RULES...and look at the results.  We abandoned El-Salvadore after they murdered American clergy and finally came up front and center in the world's attention.   Similar circumstances occured in Guatamala where the government waged war against its indigenous populations.

 

Speaking of Colombia, I know something of this as I'm half Colombian myself and have lost an Uncle in that conflict.  While you can find a few examples of drug lords who were successfully eliminated, the Colombian Civil War is currently the longest running civil war in this hemisphere and perhaps the world.   Despite BILLIONS of dollars being poured into Colombia by the United States, Green Beret and Delta Force advisors, extremely brutal death squad and terror tactics, and efforts to erradicate the source of the guerillas wealth (coca plants), these guerillas are still as strong as ever and still enjoy popular support in many parts of Colombia.  So "not playing by the rules" and using terror tactics has failed in Colombia as well.  That is one reason why the government is now changing its tune and moving away from supporting right-wing paramiliary groups like the AUC.  The AUC itself is also making efforts at reform.  

Meanwhile many mercenaries are flocking to Colombia to make good money training FARC and ELN guerillas.  There are rumored to be quite a few ex-Israeli commandos working there according to the AUC website (which is in Spanish but interesting to read if you can read Spanish).

Finally let me tell you one big reason why terror tactics (the Salvadore Option), will NOT work in Iraq.  

1.  America would then be seen as 10 times the hypocrits that we already appear to the world.  We would be speaking of spreading freedom and democracy while murdering, torturing, raping, and brutalizing all those who oppose us regardless if they are fighting or not.  What kind of message does that send?   America faught against the British to be free of such tyranny.  Any American with any sense of pride in who we are and in what we represent will fight against this politically because it would only be so long before such tactics were logically turned inward to fight against the resulting Islamic resistance within the United States...one in which Muslims and Non-Muslims would be terrorized.

That is one reason why I am a firm believer in the US Constitution and the right to bear arms.  The founding fathers of America in their wisdom, made it very clear that it was the duty of every American to oppose tyrannical governments if such a government were to emerge.  

So far it has not... but with the slow erosion of the constitution (and almost certain suspension of it in the case of another large terrorist attack), this is a very real scenario that the US media refuses to speak of.

2.  You fail to understand the mindset of Islamic extremsists in the same way the Bush administration has completely failed.   You can call the nsurgents criminals, terrorists, freedom-haters, and murderes all you want but all that serves is to blur any understanding of who these insurgents really are and in doing so figuring out how to deal with them in the most effective manner on a case by case basis.

These insurgents are people who have grown up under oppressive regimes and know what brutality is all about.  Furthermore, they are religious zealots.  Do you wonder why some of the more extreme groups fighting in Iraq do not care if they kill innocent Iraqis?   Its because they rationlize such things by calling the dead Iraqis either infidels (for supporting Americans) or martyrs who will go to paradise if they were accidentally killed by the bombings.  In their mind they simply hastened the journey to paradise of those Muslims and gave them a blessing.  

If you torture, rape, and kill their family members and supporters, in their minds for sure their loved ones will be sent to the highest level of heaven to be seated amongst the highest ranks of martyrs in the Kingdom of God.  They will rationalize through their religion this horror and in fact even glorify the sacrifices made by their loved ones and supporters.

They will furthermore show video clips of our attrocities against civilians a thousand times more on the internet and Arab media.

I absolutely guarantee you that in the face of this kind of American terror tactics, that even the most liberal Muslims around the world will join the cause to fight against America.

This is not a regional conflict.   The War on Terror is a worldwide conflict with global implications.   If you use a narrow, near-sighted paradigm like that in American foreign policy, then we risk a true world war which would result in the genocide of millions to contain it.

Just imagine... American Muslims watching Al-Jazeera showing one after another Iraqi women who claimed they were raped by Iraqi government forces (or worse American forces).  Imagine them showing mutilated bodies of women and children who were tortured and murdered by Iraqi government forces or American forces....things they don't show when the insurgents carry out such attacks.  

They already do this after American bombings, but if we committed such attrocities, the media impact would be on a much greater scale.

3. We don't and can't control the world media. American Muslims seeing such images repeatedly and realizing the horrific nature of American occupation will almost certainly rise to action regardless of the consequences.  They will not stand by and watch their own country carry out such horror against their fellow Muslims.  

Yes you can ask, "Why don't they care when fellow Muslims do such attrocities?".   The fact of the matter is that most do care, but also most of the mosques abroad in Europe and America are controlled by highly conservative Wahabi/Salefi Imams who refuse to condem such terrorist actions as they either believe that Muslims shouldn't speak out against Muslims defending their homeland (in their mind) regardless of their tactics, or that they are afraid of getting replaced in the mosque for being a "Zionist supporter".  

Its a very complex situation that any American administration needs to understand before embarking on a path that is difficult to return from.  

Sadly however I believe that the Bush administration is gradually turning towards "The Salvadore Option" without understanding the social, geopolitical, and religious consequences such tactics will bring about.  

So while I respect your opinions and I can understand why you believe this is a good solution (it makes logical sense from a strict psychological perspective), please try and look at things from the eyes of a Islamic militant and how they will capitalize upon American terror tactics.  It will in fact be a great gift to them, just as the Iraq invasion was the greatest single factor in the rapid growth of Al-Qaeda around the world.   History shows these tactics flat out don't work unless you have total domination of the media and control of most exit/entry points into a country such as the Russians in Chechnya...and even there...the jihad continues.

If you wish for solutions on how to successfully combat terrorism with a clear end game strategy I can post that on a seperate post.  

Trust me, all hope is not lost.  There are viable alternatives and very intelligent ways to combat terrorism... ways that have not been tried yet.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ruff 102]

i was only saying sunni's are not the majority therefore insurgents don't have popular support. i was not implying anything on them. nor do i support the el salvador option.

i never agreed on the elsalvador option. rape, murder and torture just because u support a group i don't support it.

also you can support but not participate, u believe in the cause but if they ask u do something u don't.

but if you participate in the killing of civillians and soldiers that makes you a part of the insurgency/group or whatever. making terrorists collaborators causing deaths are legitamate target in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

i never said start killing supporters. nor the entire populace.

I THINK FROM READING ALL YOUR POSTS I NOW ALSO DON'T AGREE ON THE IDEA OF THREATENING OF KILLING THE FAMILY OF A TERRORIST AS A THREAT TO PREVENT A TERRORIST ACT.

but in a extreme terrorist threat that they do get hold of a russian nuke somewhere and get in america or any democratic country i believe those countries won't hesitate on using their familys to prevent it from happening or whatever measure to prevent that act to occur.

I still believe though a bullet is still the answer for a terrorist in iraq or anywhere in the world. since u also stated that imams themselves are scared of getting replaced by more extreme ones, in certain cases. then how is a new age approach possible?  governments against amercia are responsible for sprouting terrorism, how are those terrorists supposed to be educated there. it's other governments faults aswell. how is america or it's allies going to change those countries minds?  money? education? i don't think those are possible due to fact that governments support terrorism since they can't beat america conventionally nor want to be democratic or coopearte since they love power.

i seriously belive your country had a chance with john kerry. but still elected george to show that there is no show of weakness on leasership in time of war.  but bush has surrounded himself with very extereme people rumsfeld, wolf, rice and the only smart one colin retired. collin was the military who served and fixed the army after vietnam. i respect bush because he has the balls to do things but he doesnt have other advices now since collin is gone.

to summarise, i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and extreme action is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons). i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america msut cooperate with them which is impossible for certain of reasons.

The New Age approach itself requires

Quote[/b] ]matter is that most do care, but also most of the mosques abroad in Europe and America are controlled by highly conservative Wahabi/Salefi Imams who refuse to condem such terrorist actions as they either believe that Muslims shouldn't speak out against Muslims defending their homeland (in their mind) regardless of their tactics, or that they are afraid of getting replaced in the mosque for being a "Zionist supporter".

that thinking to change which in my view gives all the responsibility to the whole muslim community. If that works, there will be other countries unwilling to change due to hatred of america. The New age approach in my view is in the table of of muslim communities then.

Now i think all america has to do, is kill more terrorists without invading another country and without hurting civllians in the process.

Quote[/b] ]Both sides did commit attrocities, but the government forces by far was responsible for the bulk of the attrocities and often targeted labor union leaders, clergy, university students with leftist leanings, and pretty much anyone who even hinted at sympathising with the rebels

never did i agree what the government did.

as for colombia i reckon the new groups emerged due to the police helping the "los pepes" eliminate pablos men.  in colombia also i believe its the CORRUPT government officials that wreck the country. pretending to burn selected cocaine areas for show. and what was the government to do with pablo? he bombed, killed innocent civillians, politicians, judges, police, the army and relatives of government officials or whoever opposed him. he murdered people and ran his organisation in his mansion jail cell. i believe to end that u need a bullet. we go back through history WW2. we would all be wiped out if hitler prevailed. For me sad but true for certain people who don't  fear death and will kill thousands of people with no mercy a bullet is the answer.

again

*i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and EXTEREME ACTION is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons).

*collaborators CAUSING DEATHS are legitamate targets in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

*i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america must cooperate with them which is impossible for obvious of reasons.

and do post alternative ways, it's better in this thread since some  U.S. official might be reading our posts and might take it up. also it could have brain storming ideas on what could be done in iraq. u never know the offtopic thread of bis could be the ones who give your country a new idea.

   

[quicksand 0]

UK military plane crashes in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]A British military transport plane has crashed in Iraq, the British Army has confirmed.

There was no immediate word on casualties, but the wreckage was scattered over a large area.

The C-130 Hercules based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, crashed about 40 kilometres (25 miles) north west of Baghdad, say US officials.

It was not known if troops or equipment were on board, said the Combined Press Information Centre in Baghdad.

The incident happened around 1640 local time (1340 GMT).

According to reports it was en route from Baghdad to the city of Balad, north-west of the capital, which houses one of the largest US airbases in Iraq.

Helicopters are at the scene and have observed the wreckage.

A British Army spokesman in Iraq said: "We can confirm that a UK C130 Hercules has crashed in central Iraq.

"We are not able to confirm the safety of the crew or any passengers. The cause of the crash is not yet known."

A spokesman from RAF Lyneham said details were still sketchy and again she could not confirm how many people were on board.

"It's too early to speculate on the cause - we're dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident at the moment," she said.

The US-built troop carrier is used by both British and US forces.

British military chiefs have used the plane as a "workhorse" to transport troops, fuel, ammunition and humanitarian relief.

It is the favoured aircraft of special forces (SAS) and is regarded as being especially of use in Iraq for its ability to land in desert conditions.

Hercules planes have an excellent safety record, according to Paul Beaver of Jane's Defence Weekly.

An RAF Hercules crashed in Albania in 1999 because the load was not properly strapped down, he added.

If fully loaded this aircraft could cary some 100 passangers.By the current details it is very hard to think anyone survived it,so in a worst case scenario this could emerge as a catastrohpy for the Biritish troops...

[red oct 2]

they've been saying the harsh iraqi desert is putting a lot of stress on the vehicles. its what caused the crash of the sea stallion a few days ago. is there any more info on how many people were in the plane?

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

also you can support but not participate, u believe in the cause but if they ask u do something u don't.

but if you participate in the killing of civillians and soldiers that makes you a part of the insurgency/group or whatever. making terrorists collaborators causing deaths are legitamate target in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

i never said start killing supporters. nor the entire populace.

Um...  do you definite "collaborators" the same as "supporters"?   If so you just contradicted yourself above unless you made a typo somewhere.  

Quote[/b] ]

I THINK FROM READING ALL YOUR POSTS I NOW ALSO DON'T AGREE ON THE IDEA OF THREATENING OF KILLING THE FAMILY OF A TERRORIST AS A THREAT TO PREVENT A TERRORIST ACT.

but in a extreme terrorist threat that they do get hold of a russian nuke somewhere and get in america or any democratic country i believe those countries won't hesitate on using their familys to prevent it from happening or whatever measure to prevent that act to occur.

If they got nukes, they'ed use 'em no matter what you did to their families.  For them it would mean the coming of Judgement Day in their minds.  If they get ahold of nukes and are stupid enough to use them, the whole world is screwed.  More then likely a good section of the Middle East would get nuked and the resulting massive amounts of radioactive fallout would certain badly effect most of the world.

Quote[/b] ]

I still believe though a bullet is still the answer for a terrorist in iraq or anywhere in the world. since u also stated that imams themselves are scared of getting replaced by more extreme ones, in certain cases. then how is a new age approach possible?  governments against amercia are responsible for sprouting terrorism, how are those terrorists supposed to be educated there. it's other governments faults aswell. how is america or it's allies going to change those countries minds?  money? education? i don't think those are possible due to fact that governments support terrorism since they can't beat america conventionally nor want to be democratic or coopearte since they love power.

A bullet (or a 2000lb bomb) is a nice satisfying answer.  It provides immediate results.  But it does nothing to stop the growth and spread of terrorism unless we started programs of genocide.  Using violence is a reactive measure.  How do we know when they'll strike?  We haven't been able to infiltrate these groups very well.  Do we invade more countries?  Last time we did that Al-Qaeda recruitment boomed.  Can we count on support of our old allies to invade more countries?  Aside from Britain (and even that's questionable) no.

Do we have enough troops to invade the entire Middle East as well as Indonesia and Malaysia?  No.  Would this lead to a world war?  Yes.

You say other governments against America are responsible for spawning terrorists but guess which countries most of these terrorists are coming from?  Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Yemen...all with governments friendly to the United States.  Ironically the modern Al-Qaeda type Jihadi today do not usually come from our old enemies Iran and Libya.  There are some from Syria, but even those numbers are low compared to those coming from countries with governments friendly to the United States.

We can not simply point the finger at other countries and blame terrorism on them.  The fact of the matter is that our own foreign policies provide the fuel for terrorism.  Al-Qaeda was small when 9/11 happened.  We had the world's sympathy and support.  However the invasion of Iraq changed all that and what basically happened is that did exactly what Osama Bin Laden said we'd do.  We invaded the heart of the Middle East...a country holding the world's second largest oil reserves.  Basically we acted like the colonialist/imperialist nation that Osama Bin Laden had preached about.  Our invasion lit a fire in the hearts of Muslims all over the world..for some that spark burned with deep hatred and resentment that was already there because of our support for Israel and our refusal to put pressure on Israel to halt settlements and other aggrivating tactics that fuel Palistinian terrorism (which contrary to what the media portrays is NOT connected to Al-Qaeda).  It is extremely rare that Palistinian terrorists have targeted Americans.  While groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are nonetheless terrorists, they are still not a threat to American security.  However Al-Qaeda has only since the late 1990's started using the Palistinian issue as a rallying cry despite calls from Hamas, PLA, and Islamic Jihad leadership for Osama Bin Laden to stop tryng to connect his cause of global religious war to their cause which is strictly between them and Israel.  Hezbollah (the Lebanese terror/guerilla group) likewise has made statements distancing themselves from Al-Qaeda.  

So once you flesh out the differences between various terrorist groups and concentrate on the most dangerous groups associated with Al-Qaeda you then can begin to develop strategies in dealing with them.  

One thing that I need to point out is that you make many assumptions about terrorist that are dangerous.  You assume that they are all uneducated but in reality, their leadership is often highly educated.  It is not simply a matter of New Age Hippy Love diplomacy or of simply educating them.  

The trick is in HOW you educate them.  You can stick every Iraqi insurgent prisoner in a room and force them to listen to lectures on freedom and democracy all you want and it won't mean a damn thing to them.  They'll just laugh.  

They way to cause changes in the attitudes and perceptions of Islamic militants is to speak in their language.  No, not Arabic... the language of Islam.  From my own studies of the Qu'ran and Hadiths I am absolutely convinced that Islam is absolutely opposed to terrorism.  The problem is that you have these so called Al-Qaeda "scholars" who get on Al-Jazeera and preach on the internet where they use verses from the Qu'ran and Hadiths completely out of context or based on some really stretched interpretations of the Qu'ran.  These guys are in fact VERY easy to refute.  Even myself, someone new to the study of Islam can refute most of them very easily.  What needs to be done is a highly aggressive counter-propaganda campaign  to point by point dismantle Al-Qaeda's arguements that what they do is legitimate Jihad and that they represent true Islam.   Using America's vast marketing resources we could easily promote all over the Middle East radio/TV commercials and newspaper adds revealing how these terrorists are blaspheming Islam and that in fact anyone who is a terrorist or who supports these terrorists risks burning in the flames of hell by listening to their Nefs (carnal desires, pride, hatred, ect...) and the whisperings of Shaitan (satan) master of chaos, rather then living the life of an honorable, God fearing Muslim who strives to do the right thing and to be a good human being who submits completely to God.

Now I'm not saying there aren't problems with certain parts of Islam where there is alot of debate on interpretation, but by and large most of the religion is very clearly against the killing of innocent human beings and about killing with hatred.  From existing historical documents showing the peace treaty between the prophet Mohammed and Christians he faught with, it is very clear that he gave them many concessions and those he conquered, he did not force into Islam.  The Qu'ran states, "There is no compulsion in religion."  This is something militants absolutely ignore.  In Hadiths there are also good examples of the Prophet Mohammed condemming the killing of prisoners and other war crimes.  

There are tons of other examples within Islam showing how Jihad is supposed to be faught and how it is not supposed to be faught that can be used I think VERY effectively to combat Islamic extremism and militancy.  

While it won't end armed conflict in Iraq it may certainly change the nature of the conflict by making it less savage and reducing the number of Muslims going to Iraq to carry out Jihad especially if our propoganda can convince the Muslim world that we are friends of Islam and are not attacking their religion.  

Furthermore their is a history of democracy within Islam that we can use as a context for developing democracy in the Middle East.  This simply has not been used largely because our State Department, Department of Defense, Intelligence Agencies, and military completely lack the experts needed to implement these programs or lack the political will to in effect, manipulate religion.   Many Christian politicians for example would certainly be opposed to promoting any brand of Islam regardless if it meant ending the war on terror.

On the Muslim side, some may say, "HEY you are TAMPERING WITH OUR RELIGION!" and to that I would say, "Hey, I am helping to unify Muslims and fight against the oppression of Muslims by encouraging Islamic based concepts of democracy and freedom.  Furthermore I would tell them that developing good relations with the West will ultimately mean more converts to Islam.  All I have to do is simply point out that before 9/11, Islam was the fastest growing religion in the United States and that if their faith is strong, they should not worry about being "corrupted" by dysfunctional aspects of Western society and culture.

So there are many hurdles that need to be lept over before these programs can be implemented.  I also have many more programs and ideas that will take too long to discuss here.  It is in this area that I am currently seeking employment.  But so far no takers.

 

Quote[/b] ]

i seriously belive your country had a chance with john kerry. but still elected george to show that there is no show of weakness on leasership in time of war.  but bush has surrounded himself with very extereme people rumsfeld, wolf, rice and the only smart one colin retired. collin was the military who served and fixed the army after vietnam. i respect bush because he has the balls to do things but he doesnt have other advices now since collin is gone.

Whether Bush has balls or not to me does not matter.  I care whether or not he has wisdom..which so far he has not demonstrated.  I don't think Kerry would have been much better, but I think that at least Kerry would be a little more flexible.  Our enemy is extremely adaptable...and so far we are like a big lumbering giant swatting at flies with a baseball bat in a china shop.

Quote[/b] ]

to summarise, i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and extreme action is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons). i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america msut cooperate with them which is impossible for certain of reasons.

Extreme action (which I'm still unclear about what you mean by that) will do nothing to prevent extreme attacks when we have no clue when or where these attacks will take place and when we are continually feeding the fire of terrorism with our foreign policy rather then trying to put those fires out.

Two wrongs don't make a right... they just make us even more wrong.   Now...if we actually knew EXACTLY where the most dangerous terrorists are hiding and what their plans were, then absolutely, I fully support bombing the tar out of them.   However the problem is that we have no clue how to tell part a "Good Muslim" from a "Bad Muslim (terrorist)".  Even Muslims have difficulty with that concept.   Terrorists often live invisbily amongst normal Muslims who are just like you and me and just want to go about their lives in peace.

If we just bomb the hell out of any country that has terrorists in it, then we have a LOT of countries to start bombing.  Nuking them all would be the most efficient method...and of coarse that would mean murdering millions of people.  Even more then Hitler killed.

Now...if we set up an international enviornment where we are not seen as a threat to their countries and religion, then they have no reason to attack us.   I think its a no-brainer that option #2 is a heck of a lot nicer then option #1.  However the people who prefer option #1 (or similar options of extreme violence) will justify this belief by using fear.  They will say that even if we act peaceful, they will still attack us anyways because they hate us for our freedom and democracy.  But these are hollow words that are not based on ANY kind of empircal data.  They are simply words used by American politicians to get the public to support our military campaign in Iraq and our continued aggressive stance towards Middle Eastern countries that are not Israel/America friendly.

You ask an Islamic fundamentalist why they hate America and I guarantee you they will say, "because you invaded Iraq" or "Because you support the oppression of the Palistinians and a policy of Zionist expansionism".   Some of the more educated Wahabis will even cite papers written by ultra-rightwing Israeli supporters within the Bush Administration who in their minds, confirm Bush's agenda for the Middle East.

Middle East politics RUN on conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are taken as fact there.  This is in part because we do nothing to counter these conspiracy theories.  Instead American foreign policy fullfills many of these conspiracies.    

Quote[/b] ]

The New Age approach itself requires

that thinking to change which in my view gives all the responsibility to the whole muslim community. If that works, there will be other countries unwilling to change due to hatred of america. The New age approach in my view is in the table of of muslim communities then.

First off...I think calling it a "new age" approach has very negative conotations both with Christians and most definitely with Muslims.  They see American/European "New Age" religious beliefs like modern Wiccan type religions as very very much against their Islamic beliefs.

Second... you can't expect an enemy to change their views when your side refuses to alter its behavior that caused those views to develop in the first place.   It takes two to tango.  Every conflict has two sides.  Sometimes one side is more right or wrong then the other from a 3rd party persective, but most often both sides are somewhat in the wrong and that is where diplomacy comes it to try and make ammends to these wrongs that were done.

This is the problem of Israeli methods of diplomacy with the Palistinians.  They do stupid stuff like resume settlement constructions and then scream "terrorists" when the Palistinians react in a predictably violent manner, which in turn provokes a violent response by the Israelies.  Its an ugly viscious circle of violence.  The Israeli method is a VERY bad model to follow when it comes to dealing with terrorists.  

Arrogance and stubborness does nothing but cover up weakness and stupidity.

Quote[/b] ]

Now i think all america has to do, is kill more terrorists without invading another country and without hurting civllians in the process.

Well if you or anyone can figure out how to kill them without hurting civilians then they'll win a Nobel Peace prize.  

Quote[/b] ]

never did i agree what the government did.

as for colombia i reckon the new groups emerged due to the police helping the "los pepes" eliminate pablos men.  in colombia also i believe its the CORRUPT government officials that wreck the country. pretending to burn selected cocaine areas for show. and what was the government to do with pablo? he bombed, killed innocent civillians, politicians, judges, police, the army and relatives of government officials or whoever opposed him. he murdered people and ran his organisation in his mansion jail cell. i believe to end that u need a bullet. we go back through history WW2. we would all be wiped out if hitler prevailed. For me sad but true for certain people who don't  fear death and will kill thousands of people with no mercy a bullet is the answer.

Um Pablo Escobar was no Hitler.  Its not black & white like that.  In many parts of Colombia that I've been to, Pablo Escobar was regarded as a great man and hero of the poor because he was very generous with his money helped alot of poor people.  I actually went to a party at a ranch that was owned by him or one of his associates...I never asked.

It was a good party though.  

But yeah I do agree that is Colombia's corrupt government that is the main problem.  But we feed it.  America's main interest is in Colombia's oil and mineral wealth.  Most of the agricultural industry is owned by American or American lead multinational agro-corporations.  Ditto for most of the mineral and oil development Co's.  A lot of indigenous people have been displaced by these companies (often driven off or murdered by death squads or government forces).  Hence thats often why you see a large number of indigenous people fighting on the side of FARC and the ELN.  

Bullets haven't solved anything there in 50 years and the drug trade is as strong as ever.   For every drug lord you kill there are 20 jumping at the chance to take his place.  Furthermore the drug trade is tied in with corrupt government officials, right wing paramilitaries, and most of the left-wing rebel groups.  Its a similar situation in the Congo where many different factions fight for control of the Congo's rich Diamond mines, Coltan mines, and other mining facilities for various types of minerals and gemstones.  

Wars like that are difficult to end when you have so many different factions involved.

Quote[/b] ]

again

*i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and EXTEREME ACTION is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons).

*collaborators CAUSING DEATHS are legitamate targets in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

*i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america must cooperate with them which is impossible for obvious of reasons.

And again, it will do very very little to stop terrorists from succeeding in their goals of mass murder.  They operate in cell systems where even the penetration/elimination of one cell does not insure that the other cells with parallel missions will be captured or destroyed.  

Simply put, America and European intellligence agencies suck at penetrating these cells because we totally fail to understand who these groups are.

Quote[/b] ]

and do post alternative ways, it's better in this thread since some  U.S. official might be reading our posts and might take it up. also it could have brain storming ideas on what could be done in iraq. u never know the offtopic thread of bis could be the ones who give your country a new idea.

   

I doubt many US officials read a forum for a game.  I've been talking to people at various agencies trying to drum up interest but its an uphill struggle.  Most departments are set in their ways and really have no interest in developing new methods of fighting terrorism.  But perhaps things will change.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[blackdog~ 0]

Dan Rather must of had a hard time saying that today was a remarkable success.

[denoir 0]

Dan Rather must of had a hard time saying that today was a remarkable success.

Yes, it truly is difficult to call it a remarkable success.

[Scrub 0]

Congratulations to all Iraqis who took the chance to guide their nation.  Keep on your representatives...  It's YOUR country now.  Not theirs.  Never forget or let up.

Note To Terrrorists: Get out now - Before the Iraqi's understand that most of them just voted 'they don't want you here'.  They'll soon greet each other, start sniffing you out, and string y'all up. What a nice day that will be.  

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]

also you can support but not participate, u believe in the cause but if they ask u do something u don't.

but if you participate in the killing of civillians and soldiers that makes you a part of the insurgency/group or whatever. making terrorists collaborators causing deaths are legitamate target in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

i never said start killing supporters. nor the entire populace.

Um...  do you definite "collaborators" the same as "supporters"?   If so you just contradicted yourself above unless you made a typo somewhere.  

Quote[/b] ]

I THINK FROM READING ALL YOUR POSTS I NOW ALSO DON'T AGREE ON THE IDEA OF THREATENING OF KILLING THE FAMILY OF A TERRORIST AS A THREAT TO PREVENT A TERRORIST ACT.

but in a extreme terrorist threat that they do get hold of a russian nuke somewhere and get in america or any democratic country i believe those countries won't hesitate on using their familys to prevent it from happening or whatever measure to prevent that act to occur.

If they got nukes, they'ed use 'em no matter what you did to their families.  For them it would mean the coming of Judgement Day in their minds.  If they get ahold of nukes and are stupid enough to use them, the whole world is screwed.  More then likely a good section of the Middle East would get nuked and the resulting massive amounts of radioactive fallout would certain badly effect most of the world.

Quote[/b] ]

I still believe though a bullet is still the answer for a terrorist in iraq or anywhere in the world. since u also stated that imams themselves are scared of getting replaced by more extreme ones, in certain cases. then how is a new age approach possible?  governments against amercia are responsible for sprouting terrorism, how are those terrorists supposed to be educated there. it's other governments faults aswell. how is america or it's allies going to change those countries minds?  money? education? i don't think those are possible due to fact that governments support terrorism since they can't beat america conventionally nor want to be democratic or coopearte since they love power.

A bullet (or a 2000lb bomb) is a nice satisfying answer.  It provides immediate results.  But it does nothing to stop the growth and spread of terrorism unless we started programs of genocide.  Using violence is a reactive measure.  How do we know when they'll strike?  We haven't been able to infiltrate these groups very well.  Do we invade more countries?  Last time we did that Al-Qaeda recruitment boomed.  Can we count on support of our old allies to invade more countries?  Aside from Britain (and even that's questionable) no.

Do we have enough troops to invade the entire Middle East as well as Indonesia and Malaysia?  No.  Would this lead to a world war?  Yes.

You say other governments against America are responsible for spawning terrorists but guess which countries most of these terrorists are coming from?  Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Yemen...all with governments friendly to the United States.  Ironically the modern Al-Qaeda type Jihadi today do not usually come from our old enemies Iran and Libya.  There are some from Syria, but even those numbers are low compared to those coming from countries with governments friendly to the United States.

We can not simply point the finger at other countries and blame terrorism on them.  The fact of the matter is that our own foreign policies provide the fuel for terrorism.  Al-Qaeda was small when 9/11 happened.  We had the world's sympathy and support.  However the invasion of Iraq changed all that and what basically happened is that did exactly what Osama Bin Laden said we'd do.  We invaded the heart of the Middle East...a country holding the world's second largest oil reserves.  Basically we acted like the colonialist/imperialist nation that Osama Bin Laden had preached about.  Our invasion lit a fire in the hearts of Muslims all over the world..for some that spark burned with deep hatred and resentment that was already there because of our support for Israel and our refusal to put pressure on Israel to halt settlements and other aggrivating tactics that fuel Palistinian terrorism (which contrary to what the media portrays is NOT connected to Al-Qaeda).  It is extremely rare that Palistinian terrorists have targeted Americans.  While groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are nonetheless terrorists, they are still not a threat to American security.  However Al-Qaeda has only since the late 1990's started using the Palistinian issue as a rallying cry despite calls from Hamas, PLA, and Islamic Jihad leadership for Osama Bin Laden to stop tryng to connect his cause of global religious war to their cause which is strictly between them and Israel.  Hezbollah (the Lebanese terror/guerilla group) likewise has made statements distancing themselves from Al-Qaeda.  

So once you flesh out the differences between various terrorist groups and concentrate on the most dangerous groups associated with Al-Qaeda you then can begin to develop strategies in dealing with them.  

One thing that I need to point out is that you make many assumptions about terrorist that are dangerous.  You assume that they are all uneducated but in reality, their leadership is often highly educated.  It is not simply a matter of New Age Hippy Love diplomacy or of simply educating them.  

The trick is in HOW you educate them.  You can stick every Iraqi insurgent prisoner in a room and force them to listen to lectures on freedom and democracy all you want and it won't mean a damn thing to them.  They'll just laugh.  

They way to cause changes in the attitudes and perceptions of Islamic militants is to speak in their language.  No, not Arabic... the language of Islam.  From my own studies of the Qu'ran and Hadiths I am absolutely convinced that Islam is absolutely opposed to terrorism.  The problem is that you have these so called Al-Qaeda "scholars" who get on Al-Jazeera and preach on the internet where they use verses from the Qu'ran and Hadiths completely out of context or based on some really stretched interpretations of the Qu'ran.  These guys are in fact VERY easy to refute.  Even myself, someone new to the study of Islam can refute most of them very easily.  What needs to be done is a highly aggressive counter-propaganda campaign  to point by point dismantle Al-Qaeda's arguements that what they do is legitimate Jihad and that they represent true Islam.   Using America's vast marketing resources we could easily promote all over the Middle East radio/TV commercials and newspaper adds revealing how these terrorists are blaspheming Islam and that in fact anyone who is a terrorist or who supports these terrorists risks burning in the flames of hell by listening to their Nefs (carnal desires, pride, hatred, ect...) and the whisperings of Shaitan (satan) master of chaos, rather then living the life of an honorable, God fearing Muslim who strives to do the right thing and to be a good human being who submits completely to God.

Now I'm not saying there aren't problems with certain parts of Islam where there is alot of debate on interpretation, but by and large most of the religion is very clearly against the killing of innocent human beings and about killing with hatred.  From existing historical documents showing the peace treaty between the prophet Mohammed and Christians he faught with, it is very clear that he gave them many concessions and those he conquered, he did not force into Islam.  The Qu'ran states, "There is no compulsion in religion."  This is something militants absolutely ignore.  In Hadiths there are also good examples of the Prophet Mohammed condemming the killing of prisoners and other war crimes.  

There are tons of other examples within Islam showing how Jihad is supposed to be faught and how it is not supposed to be faught that can be used I think VERY effectively to combat Islamic extremism and militancy.  

While it won't end armed conflict in Iraq it may certainly change the nature of the conflict by making it less savage and reducing the number of Muslims going to Iraq to carry out Jihad especially if our propoganda can convince the Muslim world that we are friends of Islam and are not attacking their religion.  

Furthermore their is a history of democracy within Islam that we can use as a context for developing democracy in the Middle East.  This simply has not been used largely because our State Department, Department of Defense, Intelligence Agencies, and military completely lack the experts needed to implement these programs or lack the political will to in effect, manipulate religion.   Many Christian politicians for example would certainly be opposed to promoting any brand of Islam regardless if it meant ending the war on terror.

On the Muslim side, some may say, "HEY you are TAMPERING WITH OUR RELIGION!" and to that I would say, "Hey, I am helping to unify Muslims and fight against the oppression of Muslims by encouraging Islamic based concepts of democracy and freedom.  Furthermore I would tell them that developing good relations with the West will ultimately mean more converts to Islam.  All I have to do is simply point out that before 9/11, Islam was the fastest growing religion in the United States and that if their faith is strong, they should not worry about being "corrupted" by dysfunctional aspects of Western society and culture.

So there are many hurdles that need to be lept over before these programs can be implemented.  I also have many more programs and ideas that will take too long to discuss here.  It is in this area that I am currently seeking employment.  But so far no takers.

 

Quote[/b] ]

i seriously belive your country had a chance with john kerry. but still elected george to show that there is no show of weakness on leasership in time of war.  but bush has surrounded himself with very extereme people rumsfeld, wolf, rice and the only smart one colin retired. collin was the military who served and fixed the army after vietnam. i respect bush because he has the balls to do things but he doesnt have other advices now since collin is gone.

Whether Bush has balls or not to me does not matter.  I care whether or not he has wisdom..which so far he has not demonstrated.  I don't think Kerry would have been much better, but I think that at least Kerry would be a little more flexible.  Our enemy is extremely adaptable...and so far we are like a big lumbering giant swatting at flies with a baseball bat in a china shop.

Quote[/b] ]

to summarise, i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and extreme action is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons). i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america msut cooperate with them which is impossible for certain of reasons.

Extreme action (which I'm still unclear about what you mean by that) will do nothing to prevent extreme attacks when we have no clue when or where these attacks will take place and when we are continually feeding the fire of terrorism with our foreign policy rather then trying to put those fires out.

Two wrongs don't make a right... they just make us even more wrong.   Now...if we actually knew EXACTLY where the most dangerous terrorists are hiding and what their plans were, then absolutely, I fully support bombing the tar out of them.   However the problem is that we have no clue how to tell part a "Good Muslim" from a "Bad Muslim (terrorist)".  Even Muslims have difficulty with that concept.   Terrorists often live invisbily amongst normal Muslims who are just like you and me and just want to go about their lives in peace.

If we just bomb the hell out of any country that has terrorists in it, then we have a LOT of countries to start bombing.  Nuking them all would be the most efficient method...and of coarse that would mean murdering millions of people.  Even more then Hitler killed.

Now...if we set up an international enviornment where we are not seen as a threat to their countries and religion, then they have no reason to attack us.   I think its a no-brainer that option #2 is a heck of a lot nicer then option #1.  However the people who prefer option #1 (or similar options of extreme violence) will justify this belief by using fear.  They will say that even if we act peaceful, they will still attack us anyways because they hate us for our freedom and democracy.  But these are hollow words that are not based on ANY kind of empircal data.  They are simply words used by American politicians to get the public to support our military campaign in Iraq and our continued aggressive stance towards Middle Eastern countries that are not Israel/America friendly.

You ask an Islamic fundamentalist why they hate America and I guarantee you they will say, "because you invaded Iraq" or "Because you support the oppression of the Palistinians and a policy of Zionist expansionism".   Some of the more educated Wahabis will even cite papers written by ultra-rightwing Israeli supporters within the Bush Administration who in their minds, confirm Bush's agenda for the Middle East.

Middle East politics RUN on conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are taken as fact there.  This is in part because we do nothing to counter these conspiracy theories.  Instead American foreign policy fullfills many of these conspiracies.    

Quote[/b] ]

The New Age approach itself requires

that thinking to change which in my view gives all the responsibility to the whole muslim community. If that works, there will be other countries unwilling to change due to hatred of america. The New age approach in my view is in the table of of muslim communities then.

First off...I think calling it a "new age" approach has very negative conotations both with Christians and most definitely with Muslims.  They see American/European "New Age" religious beliefs like modern Wiccan type religions as very very much against their Islamic beliefs.

Second... you can't expect an enemy to change their views when your side refuses to alter its behavior that caused those views to develop in the first place.   It takes two to tango.  Every conflict has two sides.  Sometimes one side is more right or wrong then the other from a 3rd party persective, but most often both sides are somewhat in the wrong and that is where diplomacy comes it to try and make ammends to these wrongs that were done.

This is the problem of Israeli methods of diplomacy with the Palistinians.  They do stupid stuff like resume settlement constructions and then scream "terrorists" when the Palistinians react in a predictably violent manner, which in turn provokes a violent response by the Israelies.  Its an ugly viscious circle of violence.  The Israeli method is a VERY bad model to follow when it comes to dealing with terrorists.  

Arrogance and stubborness does nothing but cover up weakness and stupidity.

Quote[/b] ]

Now i think all america has to do, is kill more terrorists without invading another country and without hurting civllians in the process.

Well if you or anyone can figure out how to kill them without hurting civilians then they'll win a Nobel Peace prize.  

Quote[/b] ]

never did i agree what the government did.

as for colombia i reckon the new groups emerged due to the police helping the "los pepes" eliminate pablos men.  in colombia also i believe its the CORRUPT government officials that wreck the country. pretending to burn selected cocaine areas for show. and what was the government to do with pablo? he bombed, killed innocent civillians, politicians, judges, police, the army and relatives of government officials or whoever opposed him. he murdered people and ran his organisation in his mansion jail cell. i believe to end that u need a bullet. we go back through history WW2. we would all be wiped out if hitler prevailed. For me sad but true for certain people who don't  fear death and will kill thousands of people with no mercy a bullet is the answer.

Um Pablo Escobar was no Hitler.  Its not black & white like that.  In many parts of Colombia that I've been to, Pablo Escobar was regarded as a great man and hero of the poor because he was very generous with his money helped alot of poor people.  I actually went to a party at a ranch that was owned by him or one of his associates...I never asked.

It was a good party though.  

But yeah I do agree that is Colombia's corrupt government that is the main problem.  But we feed it.  America's main interest is in Colombia's oil and mineral wealth.  Most of the agricultural industry is owned by American or American lead multinational agro-corporations.  Ditto for most of the mineral and oil development Co's.  A lot of indigenous people have been displaced by these companies (often driven off or murdered by death squads or government forces).  Hence thats often why you see a large number of indigenous people fighting on the side of FARC and the ELN.  

Bullets haven't solved anything there in 50 years and the drug trade is as strong as ever.   For every drug lord you kill there are 20 jumping at the chance to take his place.  Furthermore the drug trade is tied in with corrupt government officials, right wing paramilitaries, and most of the left-wing rebel groups.  Its a similar situation in the Congo where many different factions fight for control of the Congo's rich Diamond mines, Coltan mines, and other mining facilities for various types of minerals and gemstones.  

Wars like that are difficult to end when you have so many different factions involved.

Quote[/b] ]

again

*i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and EXTEREME ACTION is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons).

*collaborators CAUSING DEATHS are legitamate targets in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

*i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america must cooperate with them which is impossible for obvious of reasons.

And again, it will do very very little to stop terrorists from succeeding in their goals of mass murder.  They operate in cell systems where even the penetration/elimination of one cell does not insure that the other cells with parallel missions will be captured or destroyed.  

Simply put, America and European intellligence agencies suck at penetrating these cells because we totally fail to understand who these groups are.

Quote[/b] ]

and do post alternative ways, it's better in this thread since some  U.S. official might be reading our posts and might take it up. also it could have brain storming ideas on what could be done in iraq. u never know the offtopic thread of bis could be the ones who give your country a new idea.

   

I doubt many US officials read a forum for a game.  I've been talking to people at various agencies trying to drum up interest but its an uphill struggle.  Most departments are set in their ways and really have no interest in developing new methods of fighting terrorism.  But perhaps things will change.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

but terrorists read the quaran daily don't they? since they have to be very fixated on teachings to fuel their cause.

wouldn't they have already known that? i'm not muslim but i already know jihad is a personal sacrifice on many things. Military jihad clearly states killing of women and children and destruction of the environment is not lawful in the quran

i was also saying that a terrorists usually gets educated by extemists schools due to the fact of poverty. some extremists groups set up schools in poverty areas to poison minds of people.

The media strategy was very good though, but it would be hard even if the country in question is able to view it to its population. would they actually allow it to be viewed.

but media power is another step at least.

this is the last time i'm going mention pablo escobar since this thread really doesnt relate to him. He was a drug lord none the less, of course he would of shared his wealth to the towns he liked but so did other gangsters and dictators, saddam for one.

and wow, was the party extravagant?

But yeah i'm very suprised the media was not fully used to combat terrorism. But it's another question if it'll work since it has never been tried and the question of countries letting the media broadcast an american made product. they could call it propoganda or they could really take in, but most would be educated in the quaran anyway. so who knows.

I think there are lots of people in the whitehouse or senate finding alterantive ways but can't be heard to to their low status in politics.

yeah that's really a good one, MEDIA could to be used more.

have already typed up all new age things, can't you send it ot senators or something?

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]

also you can support but not participate, u believe in the cause but if they ask u do something u don't.

but if you participate in the killing of civillians and soldiers that makes you a part of the insurgency/group or whatever. making terrorists collaborators causing deaths are legitamate target in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

i never said start killing supporters. nor the entire populace.

Um...  do you definite "collaborators" the same as "supporters"?   If so you just contradicted yourself above unless you made a typo somewhere.  

Quote[/b] ]

I THINK FROM READING ALL YOUR POSTS I NOW ALSO DON'T AGREE ON THE IDEA OF THREATENING OF KILLING THE FAMILY OF A TERRORIST AS A THREAT TO PREVENT A TERRORIST ACT.

but in a extreme terrorist threat that they do get hold of a russian nuke somewhere and get in america or any democratic country i believe those countries won't hesitate on using their familys to prevent it from happening or whatever measure to prevent that act to occur.

If they got nukes, they'ed use 'em no matter what you did to their families.  For them it would mean the coming of Judgement Day in their minds.  If they get ahold of nukes and are stupid enough to use them, the whole world is screwed.  More then likely a good section of the Middle East would get nuked and the resulting massive amounts of radioactive fallout would certain badly effect most of the world.

Quote[/b] ]

I still believe though a bullet is still the answer for a terrorist in iraq or anywhere in the world. since u also stated that imams themselves are scared of getting replaced by more extreme ones, in certain cases. then how is a new age approach possible?  governments against amercia are responsible for sprouting terrorism, how are those terrorists supposed to be educated there. it's other governments faults aswell. how is america or it's allies going to change those countries minds?  money? education? i don't think those are possible due to fact that governments support terrorism since they can't beat america conventionally nor want to be democratic or coopearte since they love power.

A bullet (or a 2000lb bomb) is a nice satisfying answer.  It provides immediate results.  But it does nothing to stop the growth and spread of terrorism unless we started programs of genocide.  Using violence is a reactive measure.  How do we know when they'll strike?  We haven't been able to infiltrate these groups very well.  Do we invade more countries?  Last time we did that Al-Qaeda recruitment boomed.  Can we count on support of our old allies to invade more countries?  Aside from Britain (and even that's questionable) no.

Do we have enough troops to invade the entire Middle East as well as Indonesia and Malaysia?  No.  Would this lead to a world war?  Yes.

You say other governments against America are responsible for spawning terrorists but guess which countries most of these terrorists are coming from?  Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Yemen...all with governments friendly to the United States.  Ironically the modern Al-Qaeda type Jihadi today do not usually come from our old enemies Iran and Libya.  There are some from Syria, but even those numbers are low compared to those coming from countries with governments friendly to the United States.

We can not simply point the finger at other countries and blame terrorism on them.  The fact of the matter is that our own foreign policies provide the fuel for terrorism.  Al-Qaeda was small when 9/11 happened.  We had the world's sympathy and support.  However the invasion of Iraq changed all that and what basically happened is that did exactly what Osama Bin Laden said we'd do.  We invaded the heart of the Middle East...a country holding the world's second largest oil reserves.  Basically we acted like the colonialist/imperialist nation that Osama Bin Laden had preached about.  Our invasion lit a fire in the hearts of Muslims all over the world..for some that spark burned with deep hatred and resentment that was already there because of our support for Israel and our refusal to put pressure on Israel to halt settlements and other aggrivating tactics that fuel Palistinian terrorism (which contrary to what the media portrays is NOT connected to Al-Qaeda).  It is extremely rare that Palistinian terrorists have targeted Americans.  While groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are nonetheless terrorists, they are still not a threat to American security.  However Al-Qaeda has only since the late 1990's started using the Palistinian issue as a rallying cry despite calls from Hamas, PLA, and Islamic Jihad leadership for Osama Bin Laden to stop tryng to connect his cause of global religious war to their cause which is strictly between them and Israel.  Hezbollah (the Lebanese terror/guerilla group) likewise has made statements distancing themselves from Al-Qaeda.  

So once you flesh out the differences between various terrorist groups and concentrate on the most dangerous groups associated with Al-Qaeda you then can begin to develop strategies in dealing with them.  

One thing that I need to point out is that you make many assumptions about terrorist that are dangerous.  You assume that they are all uneducated but in reality, their leadership is often highly educated.  It is not simply a matter of New Age Hippy Love diplomacy or of simply educating them.  

The trick is in HOW you educate them.  You can stick every Iraqi insurgent prisoner in a room and force them to listen to lectures on freedom and democracy all you want and it won't mean a damn thing to them.  They'll just laugh.  

They way to cause changes in the attitudes and perceptions of Islamic militants is to speak in their language.  No, not Arabic... the language of Islam.  From my own studies of the Qu'ran and Hadiths I am absolutely convinced that Islam is absolutely opposed to terrorism.  The problem is that you have these so called Al-Qaeda "scholars" who get on Al-Jazeera and preach on the internet where they use verses from the Qu'ran and Hadiths completely out of context or based on some really stretched interpretations of the Qu'ran.  These guys are in fact VERY easy to refute.  Even myself, someone new to the study of Islam can refute most of them very easily.  What needs to be done is a highly aggressive counter-propaganda campaign  to point by point dismantle Al-Qaeda's arguements that what they do is legitimate Jihad and that they represent true Islam.   Using America's vast marketing resources we could easily promote all over the Middle East radio/TV commercials and newspaper adds revealing how these terrorists are blaspheming Islam and that in fact anyone who is a terrorist or who supports these terrorists risks burning in the flames of hell by listening to their Nefs (carnal desires, pride, hatred, ect...) and the whisperings of Shaitan (satan) master of chaos, rather then living the life of an honorable, God fearing Muslim who strives to do the right thing and to be a good human being who submits completely to God.

Now I'm not saying there aren't problems with certain parts of Islam where there is alot of debate on interpretation, but by and large most of the religion is very clearly against the killing of innocent human beings and about killing with hatred.  From existing historical documents showing the peace treaty between the prophet Mohammed and Christians he faught with, it is very clear that he gave them many concessions and those he conquered, he did not force into Islam.  The Qu'ran states, "There is no compulsion in religion."  This is something militants absolutely ignore.  In Hadiths there are also good examples of the Prophet Mohammed condemming the killing of prisoners and other war crimes.  

There are tons of other examples within Islam showing how Jihad is supposed to be faught and how it is not supposed to be faught that can be used I think VERY effectively to combat Islamic extremism and militancy.  

While it won't end armed conflict in Iraq it may certainly change the nature of the conflict by making it less savage and reducing the number of Muslims going to Iraq to carry out Jihad especially if our propoganda can convince the Muslim world that we are friends of Islam and are not attacking their religion.  

Furthermore their is a history of democracy within Islam that we can use as a context for developing democracy in the Middle East.  This simply has not been used largely because our State Department, Department of Defense, Intelligence Agencies, and military completely lack the experts needed to implement these programs or lack the political will to in effect, manipulate religion.   Many Christian politicians for example would certainly be opposed to promoting any brand of Islam regardless if it meant ending the war on terror.

On the Muslim side, some may say, "HEY you are TAMPERING WITH OUR RELIGION!" and to that I would say, "Hey, I am helping to unify Muslims and fight against the oppression of Muslims by encouraging Islamic based concepts of democracy and freedom.  Furthermore I would tell them that developing good relations with the West will ultimately mean more converts to Islam.  All I have to do is simply point out that before 9/11, Islam was the fastest growing religion in the United States and that if their faith is strong, they should not worry about being "corrupted" by dysfunctional aspects of Western society and culture.

So there are many hurdles that need to be lept over before these programs can be implemented.  I also have many more programs and ideas that will take too long to discuss here.  It is in this area that I am currently seeking employment.  But so far no takers.

 

Quote[/b] ]

i seriously belive your country had a chance with john kerry. but still elected george to show that there is no show of weakness on leasership in time of war.  but bush has surrounded himself with very extereme people rumsfeld, wolf, rice and the only smart one colin retired. collin was the military who served and fixed the army after vietnam. i respect bush because he has the balls to do things but he doesnt have other advices now since collin is gone.

Whether Bush has balls or not to me does not matter.  I care whether or not he has wisdom..which so far he has not demonstrated.  I don't think Kerry would have been much better, but I think that at least Kerry would be a little more flexible.  Our enemy is extremely adaptable...and so far we are like a big lumbering giant swatting at flies with a baseball bat in a china shop.

Quote[/b] ]

to summarise, i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and extreme action is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons). i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america msut cooperate with them which is impossible for certain of reasons.

Extreme action (which I'm still unclear about what you mean by that) will do nothing to prevent extreme attacks when we have no clue when or where these attacks will take place and when we are continually feeding the fire of terrorism with our foreign policy rather then trying to put those fires out.

Two wrongs don't make a right... they just make us even more wrong.   Now...if we actually knew EXACTLY where the most dangerous terrorists are hiding and what their plans were, then absolutely, I fully support bombing the tar out of them.   However the problem is that we have no clue how to tell part a "Good Muslim" from a "Bad Muslim (terrorist)".  Even Muslims have difficulty with that concept.   Terrorists often live invisbily amongst normal Muslims who are just like you and me and just want to go about their lives in peace.

If we just bomb the hell out of any country that has terrorists in it, then we have a LOT of countries to start bombing.  Nuking them all would be the most efficient method...and of coarse that would mean murdering millions of people.  Even more then Hitler killed.

Now...if we set up an international enviornment where we are not seen as a threat to their countries and religion, then they have no reason to attack us.   I think its a no-brainer that option #2 is a heck of a lot nicer then option #1.  However the people who prefer option #1 (or similar options of extreme violence) will justify this belief by using fear.  They will say that even if we act peaceful, they will still attack us anyways because they hate us for our freedom and democracy.  But these are hollow words that are not based on ANY kind of empircal data.  They are simply words used by American politicians to get the public to support our military campaign in Iraq and our continued aggressive stance towards Middle Eastern countries that are not Israel/America friendly.

You ask an Islamic fundamentalist why they hate America and I guarantee you they will say, "because you invaded Iraq" or "Because you support the oppression of the Palistinians and a policy of Zionist expansionism".   Some of the more educated Wahabis will even cite papers written by ultra-rightwing Israeli supporters within the Bush Administration who in their minds, confirm Bush's agenda for the Middle East.

Middle East politics RUN on conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are taken as fact there.  This is in part because we do nothing to counter these conspiracy theories.  Instead American foreign policy fullfills many of these conspiracies.    

Quote[/b] ]

The New Age approach itself requires

that thinking to change which in my view gives all the responsibility to the whole muslim community. If that works, there will be other countries unwilling to change due to hatred of america. The New age approach in my view is in the table of of muslim communities then.

First off...I think calling it a "new age" approach has very negative conotations both with Christians and most definitely with Muslims.  They see American/European "New Age" religious beliefs like modern Wiccan type religions as very very much against their Islamic beliefs.

Second... you can't expect an enemy to change their views when your side refuses to alter its behavior that caused those views to develop in the first place.   It takes two to tango.  Every conflict has two sides.  Sometimes one side is more right or wrong then the other from a 3rd party persective, but most often both sides are somewhat in the wrong and that is where diplomacy comes it to try and make ammends to these wrongs that were done.

This is the problem of Israeli methods of diplomacy with the Palistinians.  They do stupid stuff like resume settlement constructions and then scream "terrorists" when the Palistinians react in a predictably violent manner, which in turn provokes a violent response by the Israelies.  Its an ugly viscious circle of violence.  The Israeli method is a VERY bad model to follow when it comes to dealing with terrorists.  

Arrogance and stubborness does nothing but cover up weakness and stupidity.

Quote[/b] ]

Now i think all america has to do, is kill more terrorists without invading another country and without hurting civllians in the process.

Well if you or anyone can figure out how to kill them without hurting civilians then they'll win a Nobel Peace prize.  

Quote[/b] ]

never did i agree what the government did.

as for colombia i reckon the new groups emerged due to the police helping the "los pepes" eliminate pablos men.  in colombia also i believe its the CORRUPT government officials that wreck the country. pretending to burn selected cocaine areas for show. and what was the government to do with pablo? he bombed, killed innocent civillians, politicians, judges, police, the army and relatives of government officials or whoever opposed him. he murdered people and ran his organisation in his mansion jail cell. i believe to end that u need a bullet. we go back through history WW2. we would all be wiped out if hitler prevailed. For me sad but true for certain people who don't  fear death and will kill thousands of people with no mercy a bullet is the answer.

Um Pablo Escobar was no Hitler.  Its not black & white like that.  In many parts of Colombia that I've been to, Pablo Escobar was regarded as a great man and hero of the poor because he was very generous with his money helped alot of poor people.  I actually went to a party at a ranch that was owned by him or one of his associates...I never asked.

It was a good party though.  

But yeah I do agree that is Colombia's corrupt government that is the main problem.  But we feed it.  America's main interest is in Colombia's oil and mineral wealth.  Most of the agricultural industry is owned by American or American lead multinational agro-corporations.  Ditto for most of the mineral and oil development Co's.  A lot of indigenous people have been displaced by these companies (often driven off or murdered by death squads or government forces).  Hence thats often why you see a large number of indigenous people fighting on the side of FARC and the ELN.  

Bullets haven't solved anything there in 50 years and the drug trade is as strong as ever.   For every drug lord you kill there are 20 jumping at the chance to take his place.  Furthermore the drug trade is tied in with corrupt government officials, right wing paramilitaries, and most of the left-wing rebel groups.  Its a similar situation in the Congo where many different factions fight for control of the Congo's rich Diamond mines, Coltan mines, and other mining facilities for various types of minerals and gemstones.  

Wars like that are difficult to end when you have so many different factions involved.

Quote[/b] ]

again

*i still believe a bullet is the answer to a terrorist and EXTEREME ACTION is needed (not the elsavador option for like the third time now) to PREVENT EXTREME TERRORIST ATTACKS to occur (dirty bombs/bio weapons).

*collaborators CAUSING DEATHS are legitamate targets in my opinion since they aided in cause of deaths.

*i still don't see a new age approach since countries against america must cooperate with them which is impossible for obvious of reasons.

And again, it will do very very little to stop terrorists from succeeding in their goals of mass murder.  They operate in cell systems where even the penetration/elimination of one cell does not insure that the other cells with parallel missions will be captured or destroyed.  

Simply put, America and European intellligence agencies suck at penetrating these cells because we totally fail to understand who these groups are.

Quote[/b] ]

and do post alternative ways, it's better in this thread since some  U.S. official might be reading our posts and might take it up. also it could have brain storming ideas on what could be done in iraq. u never know the offtopic thread of bis could be the ones who give your country a new idea.

   

I doubt many US officials read a forum for a game.  I've been talking to people at various agencies trying to drum up interest but its an uphill struggle.  Most departments are set in their ways and really have no interest in developing new methods of fighting terrorism.  But perhaps things will change.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

but terrorists read the quaran daily don't they? since they have to be very fixated on teachings to fuel their cause.

wouldn't they have already known that? i'm not muslim but i already know jihad is a personal sacrifice on many things. Military jihad clearly states killing of women and children and destruction of the environment is not lawful in the quran

i was also saying that a terrorists usually gets educated by extemists schools due to the fact of poverty. some extremists groups set up schools in poverty areas to poison minds of people.

The media strategy was very good though, but it would be hard even if the country in question is able to view it to its population. would they actually allow it to be viewed.

but media power is another step at least.

this is the last time i'm going mention pablo escobar since this thread really doesnt relate to him. He was a drug lord none the less, of course he would of shared his wealth to the towns he liked but so did other gangsters and dictators, saddam for one.

and wow, was the party extravagant?

But yeah i'm very suprised the media was not fully used to combat terrorism. But it's another question if it'll work since it has never been tried and the question of countries letting the media broadcast an american made product. they could call it propoganda or they could really take in, but most would be educated in the quaran anyway. so who knows.

I think there are lots of people in the whitehouse or senate finding alterantive ways but can't be heard to to their low status in politics.

yeah that's really a good one, MEDIA could to be used more.

have already typed up all new age things, can't you send it ot senators or something?

"Um... do you definite "collaborators" the same as "supporters"? If so you just contradicted yourself above unless you made a typo somewhere"

no i don't. You can be a supporter but not go out of your way doing things that cause deaths of people. it's like saying "i support terrorism but i won't help them", that makes you a supporter.

collaborators are the ones who support and help terrorist kill civillians and soldiers.