War on terrorism?

[Supah 0]

This is one of those fights we should never grow wiery or tired off. u could say ive been taken in by USA propaganda but their point cant be talked down or be betrayed as wrong no matter how hard some ppl on this forum might want to. Terrorisme is wrong. No matter how much background info u might drag in to this about lets say palestinians NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISME. One of them (terrorists) started this. This is a good reason/excuse to destroy all the "bad guys". If nothing else let the ppl of the WTC have died for the notion that u cant be soft on these ppl and that the "Problems behind the problem" are something best dealt with who ever reasonable is alive afterwards. U cannot and should not tolerate the random killing of civilians for what ever cause. They crossed the line ..... now its time for them to pay the piper.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were already known to be assosiated with al-queda(sp?) and got into america across the canadian border.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, no.....They didn't get in through the "Canadian border", they got in through the "U.S. border". The last time I checked, the only way to get in the U.S. is through a U.S. checkpoint? Am I wrong? Since when did the U.S. let other countries decide who gets in their country? Odd......

Whats with you Yanks about blaming other people for your problems? (j/k)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISME. One of them (terrorists) started this. This is a good reason/excuse to destroy all the "bad guys".<span id='postcolor'>

What justifies invading another country in order to prove a point?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U cannot and should not tolerate the random killing of civilians for what ever cause.<span id='postcolor'>

So I guess you are against the invasion of Afghanistan then? Hmmm, strange.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> u could say ive been taken in by USA propaganda <span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm, I could but I won't, "propaganda" is such a harsh word.....

Anyways, sorry if I happend to piss either of you off.

I am not saying, nor have I ever said that the U.S. should not solve their terrorist problem. What I AM saying is that the U.S. had no real reason to go to Afghanistan. I have said it before twice and will repeat it thrice.... The attacks of sept. the 11th were and still are an IMMIGRATION problem, and not a MILITARY one. there!!.....think about it.

Tyler

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, no.....They didn't get in through the "Canadian border", they got in through the "U.S. border". The last time I checked, the only way to get in the U.S. is through a U.S. checkpoint? Am I wrong? Since when did the U.S. let other countries decide who gets in their country? Odd......<span id='postcolor'>

How the heck did they get in canada ? Look at the mexico border,we can't stop them how the heck we going stop them on the canuck border(which is biggeR ) ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What justifies invading another country in order to prove a point? <span id='postcolor'>

I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship

2 embassies

2  barracks in the middle-east

All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.

Lots of others probably.

It's not like they just blew the sh!t outta of us the other day ,and we didn't know who the  enemy was..

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I guess you are against the invasion of Afghanistan then? Hmmm, strange.<span id='postcolor'>

Bin laden LIVES in afghanistan.I don't think we can fight him in the USA,Or we talking about a new type of war ? Not to attack the Head guy in his country ? But let him blow the sh!t outta people that don't believe in Allah.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not saying, nor have I ever said that the U.S. should not solve their terrorist problem. What I AM saying is that the U.S. had no real reason to go to Afghanistan. I have said it before twice and will repeat it thrice.... The attacks of sept. the 11th were and still are an IMMIGRATION problem, and not a MILITARY one. there!!.....think about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Look at my other post.I think canada needs to check their Immigration problem though.They let like 15(less or more) terrorist in their country,and probably alot more are there right now ,planning the next attack.

Now my say--

We(American People) know america gov't has problems,but we aren't going pick up rifles and tell them to leave.That would be stupid to have a civil war over a stupid gov't thing.True they need a change but one day,one day,When all these old fu#ks die,we once again,maybe have the power.Not the company,not the dude with the billion,But The People.But Time will tell.Blowing me to shit ain't going help your cause.They've attacked the wrong people that day,They attacked  the american people(ME),not the gov't.The gov't can give a rats ass about us,but yet they want to kill us(me) ?  Because something the gov't did ,you are trying kill me because of something the gov't did,something they did ,not The People.Then you tell us why they did it,and Why we shouldn't kill them,But yet you people think that when the WTC,Pentagon got hit like that day,You truly think it hurts the U.S. gov't,But you are WRONG,it didn't do crap to them,all it did was kill US(me).So In This Conflict(war) ,I Will Support This War.Why ? Because we got troops on the line and these bastards killed US(ME,WE),Not the old guy in the big chair taking money in from these rich people,Soo they can get off crimes.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I think you guys should go back and scan my earlier posts becasue I fell like a broken record repeating myself over and over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bin laden LIVES in afghanistan.I don't think we can fight him in the USA,Or we talking about a new type of war ? Not to attack the Head guy in his country ?<span id='postcolor'>

OK, did anyone from Afghanistan attack the WTC? Most of the guys who did were from Saudi Arabia, so is Bin Laden, so why don't you attack Saudi Arabia instead??

Did Bin Laden himself attack the WTC in person? No. The guys who did had lived in the U.S. for months or years. If the U.S. Customs had stopped them, 3000 people would still be here today. For the fourth F*UCKING time, the attacks of 9/11 were and still are an immigration problem, not a military one. Osama Bin Asshole is not a direct threat to the U.S. The terrorists that DO get in ARE direct threats.

Lets say the U.S. had killed Bin Laden Sept 10th, do you honestly think that would have made a difference? What will it do know?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Canada needs to check their Immigration problem though <span id='postcolor'>

What problem? Was I mistaken or were there much more than just 15 terrorists in the U.S. at the time of the attacks? I really doubt that every single terrorist came through Canada. This point is moot, because ultimately the U.S. customs let them in, not us.

Your "problem" is a percieved one. It is not Canada's responsibility to look after you, sure we will help out some but we have our own problems. After all, you guys live in the most powerfull country on Earth right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship

2 embassies

2 barracks in the middle-east

All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.

Lots of others probably. <span id='postcolor'>

People just don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up just for the hell of it. They are doing it because in their mind, you are the enemy and what they are doing is right. The U.S. has done more than enough to piss them off. (and no, this does not justify terrorism, i know)

The U.S. had AMPLE opportunity to stop them but they didn't. Now they are living with the mistakes of the past.

NONE of those acts were linked to an orginized government, they were all private terrorists. By your logic, if a terrorist comes from France and is allowed in by U.S. customs, we should go and bomb France to show that crooked French government who's boss.

If you want a true right-wing view of U.S. politics or events go here. You will find a lot of good articles, if anyone here actually has an attention span, I suggest you read the ones that interest you.

sheesh....

Tyler

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We(American People) know america gov't has problems,but we aren't going pick up rifles and tell them to leave.That would be stupid to have a civil war over a stupid gov't thing.True they need a change but one day,one day,When all these old fu#ks die,we once again,maybe have the power.Not the company,not the dude with the billion,But The People.But Time will tell.Blowing me to shit ain't going help your cause.They've attacked the wrong people that day,They attacked  the american people(ME),not the gov't.The gov't can give a rats ass about us,but yet they want to kill us(me) ?  Because something the gov't did ,you are trying kill me because of something the gov't did,something they did ,not The People.Then you tell us why they did it,and Why we shouldn't kill them,But yet you people think that when the WTC,Pentagon got hit like that day,You truly think it hurts the U.S. gov't,But you are WRONG,it didn't do crap to them,all it did was kill US(me).So In This Conflict(war) ,I Will Support This War.Why ? Because we got troops on the line and these bastards killed US(ME,WE),Not the old guy in the big chair taking money in from these rich people,Soo they can get off crimes.<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting and in my eyes openminded post foxer...

Its not often Americans make a differance between US citizens and Government. Most of the time blindly defending the government as they (you) feel personally offended by critics aimed at just the government.

I am sorry for all quite offensive postings I have made regarding US actions. But its really easy to be offensive since no matter how gentle one are when trying to question US foregin affairs, American citizens take it really personally and try to defend themselves at all cost (often in a offensive way). I think I can understand that though, because in your every day life in USA after sep 11:th most people probably seek comfort in each others and support USA:s actions in a patriotic way; then its probably hard to come here and read critics about it - and you wont risk your relation to friends and family for 'Internet opinions'.

Then one can wonder what I have to do with US foregin policies?

I can tell you that I feel afraid of what will come too. Probably not in the extent you are, since I live in quite nonoffensive Sweden (but I would like to be able to travel in the future); but I cant but feel for all civilian people that have died, and will die, as colateral damage from bombs and in terror attacks in USA and most certainly Europe - for what do they die? For US pride???

Now I will share some views, please dont take them as affenses, but as opinions that might easen the chock if it turns out that way:

USA might go to history as the bad guys in the later half of 20:th century (Germany was the bad ones in the first half). Whether it turns out that way or not is a matter of incidents - but it has clearly potential. If the USA will continue to do whatever it wants and attack whomever they want (justified only to US citizens) the risk increase big time. This 'war on terrorism' have potential to last for centuries....................

If terrorists strike at a European target, risk is that Europeans will blame USA for it. More and more Europeans grow tired of US influence, not only military and economically, but also in our daily life - the US empire is enormous and involves, exept military and economies, media and culture... What will happen when EU have grown stronger we will have to see, but USA:s role in the present worldorder will not last for ever...

I cant see anything creative in this 'war on terrorism' - it has not in my eyes any potential to make anything to the better. If USA kills Osama Bin Laden he will become a martyr, and he will have eve more followers. The more people that will suffer from USA:s war on terrorism the more terrorists there will be. Its completely impossible to protect a country against terrorism as long as they have a reason to hurt that nation; the only way to get rid of terrorism is to take the cause away. The cause for sep 11:th is, if not to 100% - then to a great extent, US foregin actions is the last 50 years. Whomever was really behind the terror attacks could potentially have symphaties for older US actions, as Vietnam and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and even some non military actions) too; not only more recent and present actions against muslim countries - if the real ones (videos, evidence is easy to make up) at all was muslims. Therefore what USA can do to stop further terrorism is probably to make up with its past, and now completely change its ways. But thats probably not gonna happen because the proud US citizens would never accept to lose many of the things they have learned to see as good things with USA; therefore its potential that USA will continue their way until it falls to pieces and take billions of human lives (if it lasts for centuries) with them on the way...................

Can you now see why I am concerned about this, the in the long run even potential end of human existance, 'war on terrorism'? I CAN SEE NO END TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[el Gringo Loco 1]

I can relate to a lot you mention Pukko, but there are some things to consider.

The thought that terrorism is mainly an american matter is a false one. Terrorism is ever present in almost every country on this globe even in europe we are not free of terrorists. Many terrorists use europe even as a hiding place. I think that after 9-11 there should be an answer to this menace. Mind you blowing up two of the largest buildings in the US is something different than assassinating someone. An answer had to be formulated.

Many people disagree to the way the US is handling the problem but also fail to formulate an alternative way how we should stop this malady. If we still think that we can stop terrorism by denouncing our help to israel and start opening our eyes to the palestinian case we are sorely mistaken.

Terrorism has become big business now and is sponsored by some very wealthy people and states. There's no diplomatic way in ending terrorism, or if there is please enlighten me how.

We also know that the current war on terrorism will also not stop it. But at least it is an answer to something which was kept long unanswered by the western world. In europe we are still lucky that we didn't have any big terrorist drama, but that doesn't mean that they aren't planned. Last summer english intelligence foiled a plot of algerian terrorists trying to gas the EU members in Brussels. Terrorists will always find some twisted cause to fight for and innoncent citizens will always be the victims of that. I think the war on terrorism was started too late. We know now that some organisations are trying to acquire NBC weapons and some lunatic in japan already used it in the tokyo subway.

I realise that it is impossible to stop terrorism but there should be made an effort to make it as hard as possible for these animals to commit their heinous crimes. Yes, there will be future terrorist attacks, but these would also come when there's was no war against terrorism going.

I think the topic is very difficult to comment on, but I feel that doing nothing and put confidence in diplomatic options is a station past long time ago. If there's one lesson to be learned out of all this, it must be:  You can't negotiate with terrorists, never could, never can

[Pukko 0]

Well I do think there are ways to almost eliminate terrorism. I have earlier refered to 'abstract' actions, and they do not only invlove traditional diplomatic ways.

We do live in a time when the humans on planet Tellus is on the way to globalise themselves. This can be done in many different ways, as many bad as good, and will take centuries to accomplish to any larger extent. The most positive utopia that one can have about it is that everyone lives as brothers and sisters here on Tellus. I am myself studying 'behavioral science' at the time, and see how, and different views of why, we learn all the bullshit we believe in and act after. I am therefore quite optimistic that the human race is not necessarily by nature hostile to eachother and so on. I dont think of a world where we live in 'cultural borderlands' as impossible, but indeed hard and timeconsuming to accomplish.

It will, as I said, take a long time to accomplish - but a great only destructive worldwide war will delay it with maybe centuries or more, or even make it impossible...

Therefore I say sit on your ass and try to improve relations with all other countries -many European nations already do, thats why americans see us as weak and passive. It will take time - but its the only way....

[el Gringo Loco 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Feb. 09 2002,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do think there are ways to almost eliminate terrorism. I have earlier refered to 'abstract' actions, and they do not only invlove traditional diplomatic ways.

We do live in a time when the humans on planet Tellus is on the way to globalise themselves. This can be done in many different ways, as many bad as good, and will take centuries to accomplish to any larger extent. The most positive utopia that one can have about it is that everyone lives as brothers and sisters here on Tellus. I am myself studying 'behavioral science' at the time, and see how, and different views of why, we learn all the bullshit we believe in and act after. I am therefore quite optimistic that the human race is not necessarily by nature hostile to eachother and so on. I dont think of a world where we live in 'cultural borderlands' as impossible, but indeed hard and timeconsuming to accomplish.

It will, as I said, take a long time to accomplish - but a great only destructive worldwide war will delay it with maybe centuries or more, or even make it impossible...

Therefore I say sit on your ass and try to improve relations with all other countries -many European nations already do, thats why americans see us as weak and passive. It will take time - but its the only way....<span id='postcolor'>

I'm certainly do hope that you're right in the end.

[Pete 1]

mmmmmm

i think that the terrorists (bin laden and such) need to be captured, killed...they need to be stopped.

to that we can all agree to.

but the way to do it??.....afganistan, bombed, thousands of civilians dead, thousands of soldiers...and where is bin laden?, his organisation is weaker, but how much weaker?

so what if they lsot 1000 terrorists, or 10.000 terrorists, they get new ones in a blink of an eye....they have a endless recourse of manpower.

can anyone argue about that?

i doubt it.

so what the "war" has done is to throw the talibans of the power, kill some thousand civilians, and not much more.

but, something had to be done...i agree with pukko and l24a, both are right.

as for a solution...

1: hunt down the terrosists (as L24A says)

2: help the poor countries, change policy, change the hatred towards usa to something else...(as pukko says)

somehow all seem to miss the fact that you CAN do both of those things the same time, but nobody does it...instead we have israel and usa doing all they can to get arafat of the power instead of looking for a peacefull solution, we have usa looking for a new place to have a "war on terrorism" now...we have a load of future problems coming up, but nothing is done to stop the source of the terrorism, the reasons are still there...of course terrorism will always exist to a part, but we CAN limit it a lot.

and if helping these nations will not stop terrorism atleast we have done a lot to limit the hatred towards usa/west, we have increased the wellbeing for many men...and a future generation will hate a lot less.

sometimes i wonder if the ones only calling for revenge ever thought that it will end terrorism....or if they only want to see more cool stuff at the news.

war on terrorism, the words sounds good...but it is impossible even in theory...terrorism is not a person, a nation...its a ideology, it can come up anywhere, anyhow, it can be people who are NOT registered as terrorists..it can be anyone, anytime.

all a man needs to kill himself and take down a plane with him is a simple bomb and a reason....nothing more.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, did anyone from Afghanistan attack the WTC? Most of the guys who did were from Saudi Arabia, so is Bin Laden, so why don't you attack Saudi Arabia instead??<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. But the US government did declare that any country harbouring terrorists would be treated as terrorists. Forget the crap about proof for the WTC attacks; Al-Qeda was already known to be responsible for many other attacks on America in the past, and all the pointers at the time went straight to them for this one. The American Goverment asked the Taliban to hand Al-Qeda over, and were told to get knotted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did Bin Laden himself attack the WTC in person? No. The guys who did had lived in the U.S. for months or years. If the U.S. Customs had stopped them, 3000 people would still be here today. For the fourth F*UCKING time, the attacks of 9/11 were and still are an immigration problem, not a military one. Osama Bin Asshole is not a direct threat to the U.S. The terrorists that DO get in ARE direct threats.<span id='postcolor'>

This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me  that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets say the U.S. had killed Bin Laden Sept 10th, do you honestly think that would have made a difference? What will it do know?<span id='postcolor'>

Not to the people in the WTC. but for sure there'll be a lot of people a few years down the line who won't be that worried about an attack planned by that bastard.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship

2 embassies

2  barracks in the middle-east

All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.

Lots of others probably. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People just don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up just for the hell of it. They are doing it because in their mind, you are the enemy and what they are doing is right. The U.S. has done more than enough to piss them off. (and no, this does not justify terrorism, i know)

The U.S. had AMPLE opportunity to stop them but they didn't. Now they are living with the mistakes of the past.

NONE of those acts were linked to an orginized government, they were all private terrorists. By your logic, if a terrorist comes from France and is allowed in by U.S. customs, we should go and bomb France to show that crooked French government who's boss. <span id='postcolor'>

Theoretically, true. in practice, the French government would be dumping on those terrorists just as hard. Or do you honestly think they would have given America the same bullshit as a bunch of twisted religeous fanatics, If Al-Qeda was found to be in French territory?

Regardless of the wrongs and the rights of the U.S. Government, the terrorists will always be infinitely worse. Those people couldn't give a toss about your self-percieved morally superior positon, except how it benefits them. Aside from that pal, you're just another potential target.

[Stag 0]

Can't say I disagree with much of what you say. However...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what if they lsot 1000 terrorists, or 10.000 terrorists, they get new ones in a blink of an eye....they have a endless recourse of manpower.<span id='postcolor'>

But not the rescources to train them. Training camps must be set up, equipment purchased. The U.S. has declared that "Any country harbouring terrorists will be treated as terrorists." If the Invasion of Afghanistan has achieved anything, It has shown just how capable U.S. forces are of taking a country apart. I wonder how many countries which previously sposored these people are feeling a little vulnerable right now?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what the "war" has done is to throw the talibans of the power, kill some thousand civilians, and not much more.<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban were no angels. Can anybody say otherwise? It's probable that the Northern Alliance are no better. But for the first time in Years, there is the possibility of change. Perhaps the western money now going into Afghanistan will make a difference. Time will tell.

but, something had to be done...i agree with pukko and l24a, both are right.

as for a solution...

1: hunt down the terrosists (as L24A says)

2: help the poor countries, change policy, change the hatred towards usa to something else...(as pukko says)

somehow all seem to miss the fact that you CAN do both of those things the same time, but nobody does it...instead we have israel and usa doing all they can to get arafat of the power instead of looking for a peacefull solution, we have usa looking for a new place to have a "war on terrorism" now...we have a load of future problems coming up, but nothing is done to stop the source of the terrorism, the reasons are still there...of course terrorism will always exist to a part, but we CAN limit it a lot.

and if helping these nations will not stop terrorism atleast we have done a lot to limit the hatred towards usa/west, we have increased the wellbeing for many men...and a future generation will hate a lot less.

sometimes i wonder if the ones only calling for revenge ever thought that it will end terrorism....or if they only want to see more cool stuff at the news.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">war on terrorism, the words sounds good...but it is impossible even in theory...terrorism is not a person, a nation...its a ideology, it can come up anywhere, anyhow, it can be people who are NOT registered as terrorists..it can be anyone, anytime.<span id='postcolor'>

It's difficult to impossible stop a single crazy. But if you attack organised terrorism in the countries  where they train, then it means that there is far less chance of a co-ordinated attack like 9/11. You can never stamp out fanatics; but you can deal with the political and finacial institutions that harbour them.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it isn't "bollocks". It is a hell of alot easier letting a couple terrorists come to your door and stoping them there instead of going to another country and bobming the crap out of it in order to have a chance at nabbing a few high-ranking guys.

Of course we should go after terrorists, but we should not do so by attacking whole countries. The U.S. should have waited a while until they could find out where Bin Laden was and either bomb him or send in a commando raid to capture or kill him. They really can't do that now because of the bad state the U.S. intelligence is in.

No I am not denying that they werent trained by Al-Quaida, or anyone else for that matter.

A little history lesson: The Maginot line had a gap in it. That gap was the (insert name here) Forest to the south of the line. The French did not think that the Germans would send troops and armour through a Forest, but they did. Now you know the rest of the story.

I agree with Pete.

Tyler

[Silencer 0]

forget about the terriosts look at the soviet union we have a good army the best choppers hind!!!

I bet russia will win if we had a real war with US.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 09 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me  that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it isn't "bollocks". It is a hell of alot easier letting a couple terrorists come to your door and stoping them there instead of going to another country and bobming the crap out of it in order to have a chance at nabbing a few high-ranking guys.

Of course we should go after terrorists, but we should not do so by attacking whole countries. The U.S. should have waited a while until they could find out where Bin Laden was and either bomb him or send in a commando raid to capture or kill him. They really can't do that now because of the bad state the U.S. intelligence is in.  

No I am not denying that they werent trained by Al-Quaida, or anyone else for that matter.

A little history lesson: The Maginot line had a gap in it. That gap was the (insert name here) Forest to the south of the line. The French did not think that the Germans would send troops and armour through a Forest, but they did. Now you know the rest of the story.

I agree with Pete.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Identify them. Just one gets through, How many deaths do you think he would be capable of causing?

Give me one example where a purely defensive strategy has ever resolved a conflict.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Its not a real "conflict". You can't win it. To win you would have to stop a bunch of Muslim extermeists from hating you. Do you really think thats possible?

Instead you should make them realize that trying to get into the U.S. to kill innocent civilians is an excersise in futility. I think it is impossible for the U.S. forces to go out and kill every person who thinks bad thoughts of the U.S.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">forget about the terriosts look at the soviet union we have a good army the best choppers hind!!!

I bet russia will win if we had a real war with US.<span id='postcolor'>

Silencer, quit posting your stupid, immature garbage in a serious thread.

Thankyou

Tyler

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Give me one example where a purely defensive strategy has ever resolved a conflict.

<span id='postcolor'>

even better..i give you a example of a conflict that ended without even a defence.......india got free from english rule thanks to Gandhi and his peacefull demonstrations.

there are loads of conlicts like that, but offense is the best defence...normally.

i agree that you cant possibly stop a terrorist from entering usa if he is unknown or lucky...same as you cant prevent someone already in usa from becoming a terrorist...it seems to me that you need defence, offence and dramatic change of us foreign policy to deal with it...one of them alone stops very little....altough change of us foreign policy is likely to be

the most effective method....

a potential terrorist needs only a reason, and that only YOU (usa, or what ever is the target) can give him, and you do it only by your actions.

terrorism is a sort of counter-action....not much more, you can keep yelling that "we cant make deals with terrorists" as much you want..but nobody really wants you to do that, correcting your own wrongdoings would remove a lot of the terrorist threat, even if not all...but a great part of it.

you give the terrorist one of the things he needs...you give him a reason.

the weapon he can buy in any shop...the planes that went into the wtc were hijacked with razorblades.

how is it possible to "fight a war against terrorism" when a terrorist is not much more than that...you can possibly get the training camps, but what else?...some weaponry they still would most likely not use in a terror strike...what more?...money, only a very very small part of it.

it cant be won by force....call me a pessimist, i call myself a realist.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">even better..i give you a example of a conflict that ended without even a defence.......india got free from english rule thanks to Gandhi and his peacefull demonstrations

there are loads of conlicts like that, but offense is the best defence...normally..<span id='postcolor'>

Wonder how long Gandhi would have lasted in pre-war Afghanistan.

Besides, that wasn't a war; the war had already been fought. Gandhi's tactic of disobedience never prevented The British from taking what they wanted out of India.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i agree that you cant possibly stop a terrorist from entering usa if he is unknown or lucky...same as you cant prevent someone already in usa from becoming a terrorist...it seems to me that you need defence, offence and dramatic change of us foreign policy to deal with it...one of them alone stops very little....altough change of us foreign policy is likely to be

the most effective method....<span id='postcolor'>

In fact, The USA did fight one war using Assault's defensive strategy; and they had to give up on it; Vietnam.

Thousands of tons of war materiel trickled down the Ho Chi Minh trail, despite the best efforts of US and South Vietnamese troops to stop it. But due to political considerations, they were NOT ALLOWED to cut the supplies of at source by invading the North in any strength, Despite the fact that whenever the Southern Forces engaged the NVA they almost invariably won, there was always more coming. Eventually the US had to pull out; they realised they were banging their heads against a brick wall.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a potential terrorist needs only a reason, and that only YOU (usa, or what ever is the target) can give him, and you do it only by your actions.<span id='postcolor'>

No argument there. Solving the underlying problems of a group which spawns terrorists should be the lynchpin of any future strategy. but right now, you have a shitload of maniacs running around just looking for some civilians to kill. A line I remember from some film about a guy hunting a murderer by trying to think like him. The hunter decided that the killer had been terribly abused as a child. one of his mates thought he was going soft; The hunter answered "I mourn for the child and what was done to him, but the adult is a dangerous son of a bitch and needs destroying."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">terrorism is a sort of counter-action....not much more, you can keep yelling that "we cant make deals with terrorists" as much you want..but nobody really wants you to do that, correcting your own wrongdoings would remove a lot of the terrorist threat, even if not all...but a great part of it.

you give the terrorist one of the things he needs...you give him a reason.<span id='postcolor'>

Now is the opportunity for the USA to literally put its money where its mouth is. Before the invasion they proposed exactly this action; to rebuild Afghanistan to the point that they can again function as a civilised nation. Will this happen? Time will tell.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the weapon he can buy in any shop...the planes that went into the wtc were hijacked with razorblades.<span id='postcolor'>

Flight 91 went down fighting those Terrorists. The British scumbag that boarded a flight with a bomb in his shoe was beaten down by the passengers before he could detonate the bomb. After 9/11, I think ANY potential hijacker will have a short, exciting life, regardless of what he's armed with. example: You are on an aircraft which is hijacked by a couple of people with razor blades. Do you A: sit in your seat singing "We shall not be moved," or B: Conclude that your life may well end in the bowels of a skyscraper, and do what you can to prevent it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how is it possible to "fight a war against terrorism" when a terrorist is not much more than that...you can possibly get the training camps, but what else?...some weaponry they still would most likely not use in a terror strike...what more?...money, only a very very small part of it.

it cant be won by force....call me a pessimist, i call myself a realist.<span id='postcolor'>

See previous post.

[Decimus 2]

It has been awhile since I have really read this forum and I'm not surprised in the least that the US vs Europe flame war has not changed at all.  Much of this has been said and I wish I could get back the hour and a half of my life I spent reading this topic.  I just have 3 things to say:

Ä‚ÃĘŃă ÇáĎříÇäÉ ÇáăÓáăÉ áßäř áĎíř ÇŃĘíÇČ Úäĺă

ĂäÇ ÚŃČ ŃíČÉ ÇáĹíäĺííŃíäĘáí áĂääíř ÇáĺĎà ăä ĺÄáÇà ăä ËŢÉ ćÇĺÇČÇ   ĺÄÇ ÃÚáÇđ íÃŇääí Ãí ÇáĂŢář

áĂääíř áÓĘ ČíĚćĘ

Does anyone know how to set a right alignment?

Ĺáě ÇáářŢÇÃ

ÓÇăà ÇáÚŃČířĘí

I forgot that this language is unsupported... never mind.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, The USA did fight one war using Assault's defensive strategy; and they had to give up on it; Vietnam.<span id='postcolor'>

My "strategy" is NOT to invade another country for something small or nothing at all. I can't see how you compared Vietnam to my strategy of stopping terrorists at the border and in the country and co-operationg with other governments to nab their terrorists. Freeezing assets helps alot too.

Carpet bombing a backward government's country that hasn't really done anything to you is not a real alternative.

Terrorism is commited by groups that recruit people. It's up to the individual, they need an outlet for their hate.

Tyler

(he he he he)

[Decimus 2]

Tyler what do you know about Vietnam?

Also we only carpet bombed their FRONT LINES and we used precision bombing on their instillations to minimize collateral dammage.  And as soon as we did that the entirety of enemie resitance seemed to have collapse overnight.  

I'm sorry you do know shit.  You're not a politician, you're not a tactician, you're not a historian and you're not a political analyst.  You are just someone with way too much damn time on his hands.  

I have researched Vietnam and I am going to be shipped over to Afghanistan in 9 months ( I'm in DEP and I have to get BCT and AIT out of the way and I know I'm going to Afghanistan because my unit is the 101st ABD and I enlisted last July) and I don't have only an inclination as to the truth of what is really going on.  So in other words I do know shit either.

Post Scriptam

Also terrorism is commited by Organizations not Individuals, you don not wake up one day and say "I'm gonna go blow that up" you are recruited.

{Edit} just fixing grammatical errors.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Its good to see your such a nice person....*sigh* At least I can make my own opinions and not regergitate stuff I see on CNN.

I was using "carpet bombing" as a generalization, no need to flip out.

Well I do know this about Vietnam. I know they were planning to bomb the dams in N.Vietnam in an attempt to flood the rice paddies so that they could starve out the V.C. (good idea if you ask me) but they could not because of "political" reasons.

They also wanted to bomb the ports in N.Vietnam so they could cut off the NVA's and VC's supplies. But the politicians were afraid that it would cause Soviet casualties so they didn't.

I also know that most of the bombs were dropped in S.Vietnam, not in the North where they should have been. I also know that the U.S. could have won the war with half the casualties if the politicians just had some balls and bombed the North.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not a politician, you're not a tactician, you're not a historian and you're not a political analyst. You are just someone with way too much damn time on his hands. <span id='postcolor'>

No. I am none of those things. But why do I have to be one in order to have an opinion of my own? Only politicians should have opinions? That seems rather narrow minded. Excuse me for formulating an opinion of my own, what the f*ck was I thinking?? Where did I say "I know everything there is to know"? Could you point that out?

sheesh.....

So, you joined back in July and they will be shipping you out with only a year in? Damn, they must be short on troops down there. I've been in for 13 months myself (as a weekend warrior). I'm going to university before I join the Regs.

Tyler

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I was using "carpet bombing" as a generalization, no need to flip out. <span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Carpet bombing a a generalisation? Using that generalisation, You would describe a surgeon as operating with an axe. Likewise howling about tens of thousands of civilian casualties, when the actual figure was nowhere near. You call it a generalisation. I call it a lie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do know this about Vietnam. I know they were planning to bomb the dams in N.Vietnam in an attempt to flood the rice paddies so that they could starve out the V.C. (good idea if you ask me) but they could not because of "political" reasons.

They also wanted to bomb the ports in N.Vietnam so they could cut off the NVA's and VC's supplies. But the politicians were afraid that it would cause Soviet casualties so they didn't.

I also know that most of the bombs were dropped in S.Vietnam, not in the North where they should have been. I also know that the U.S. could have won the war with half the casualties if the politicians just had some balls and bombed the North. <span id='postcolor'>

Instead they just took up a defensive posture and waited for the North Vietnamese to come at them, and they did. Left with the initiative, the NVA ran rings around the American forces. When the VC/NVA were pinned down, the US took them apart. The Tet offensive was the day that the NVA tried to take on the US on the Americans playing field, and it was a bloody disaster for them. The siege of Que Sanh; once the weather cleared and the Americans were able to bring their full air power to bare, any number of firefights where the VC tried to stand and fight, rather than inflicting casualties then getting the hell out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. I am none of those things. But why do I have to be one in order to have an opinion of my own? Only politicians should have opinions? That seems rather narrow minded. Excuse me for formulating an opinion of my own, what the f*ck was I thinking?? Where did I say "I know everything there is to know"? Could you point that out?<span id='postcolor'>

I have many opinions too. On the whole, I try to keep them to myself. If I do get into a debate, I usualy try to stick more to fact, and less to emotion. eg; You are obviously an Al-Qeda sympathiser. Oops! nope, scratch that, just a generalisation.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Well, theory is hard to prove, I don't call theory "emotion" as you do. Nor did I ever mention 10 000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, i think thats garbage IMO.

All I have been saying from the start is that there are beter ways to fight terrorism than what is being done now. I have made my suggestions, I won't repeat them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You call it a generalisation. I call it a lie.<span id='postcolor'>

So the U.S. didn't send B-52's to carpet bomb Afghanistan? What did I miss. Whatever......

BTW, I fail to see how Vietnam and todays problems compare in the slightest. That is a totaly different situation.

I love it when people criticize the U.S. government and to watch as Americans take it personally. It's quite funny.

I shouldn't have my own opinions about Afghanistan. For you see, that would be "un-patriotic" I would be "one of them"......

Tyler

[Pete 1]

tens of thousands dead civilians is a very likely possibility.

the number of dead directly from us bombings is near 4000, that is only those whose remains were found, not the ones missing or blown into atoms....

it doesnt even include the ones who died in a hospital, or lack of medical care after injuries from the bombings.

only the ones directly found at the ruins of bombed places...not anyone else, not people starwing after red cross building was bombed, not people dying after a working hospital was bombed.

tens of thousands dead?......depends pretty much how you count.

about the handling of the "war against terrorism"..you simply cant win it or end it by only hunting the terrorist bases and nations harboring them...it wont work, IRA is highly cabable organisation, and they dont really have much of a camp to train in far as i know.........

to end terrorism...you really do need to remove the cause from them, thats the weapon they have, thats the fuel for the fire, i cant understand how people fail to see the logic of this.

but then again...our political leaders arent the smartest among us, just look at bush..what would you expect from a man of his inteligence?

nothing but violence and stupidity.

dont remember who it was, maybe Sokrates of ancient greece who said "if only people would know how little inteligence the ones ruling our nations posses"

its those stupid fools (not only usa, more like all our leaders) that bring us into trouble over and over again.