An Observation on Terrorism (AQ)

[Michele 1]

Quote

before this gets me to mad - over & out

considering the tone of your post, I think that's pretty wise.

Look. Maybe I am being naive. Maybe I'm just optomistic. Maybe I'm just a fool whistling in the dark. Maybe, though, I see things a tad differently than you do.

Do I think there will be more attacks? Certainly. Do I think they'll be on the level of 9/11 or greater? Perhaps. But considering what's happened since the west was galvinized into fighting terror for real rather than just a bomb or two at an aspirin factory, or turning down several chances at apprehending OBL during other administrations, I think that activities are slowing down...if not in number of attacks (although I still think it's lower), in the total killed and the effects on the western world.

Do I think what happened in London sucks? Absolutely. But I also think it was smallish, compared to what could've been carried out. Same thing with Spain, although their capitulation to AQ may have brought the attacks to London.

Christel, I don't expect you (of all people) to understand where I'm coming from. Chuteless, you and I just disagree. It's all good...

And for the record, I don't watch FOX exclusively; I tend to watch MSNBC and CNN, and search the 'net for items of interest for follow-up, including many liberal, conservative, and everything in between sites.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Look. Maybe I am being naive. Maybe I'm just optomistic. Maybe I'm just a fool whistling in the dark. Maybe, though, I see things a tad differently than you do.

Which of course you are entitled to do, but you really are being naive if you believe there is any victory or thwarting of ANY terrorist organization.

Quote

Do I think there will be more attacks? Certainly. Do I think they'll be on the level of 9/11 or greater? Perhaps. But considering what's happened since the west was galvinized into fighting terror for real rather than just a bomb or two at an aspirin factory, or turning down several chances at apprehending OBL during other administrations, I think that activities are slowing down...if not in number of attacks (although I still think it's lower), in the total killed and the effects on the western world.

You insist on talking about the western world. The U.S. was galvanized after 9/11, the U.S. are now aware and awake.

Quote

Do I think what happened in London sucks? Absolutely. But I also think it was smallish, compared to what could've been carried out. Same thing with Spain, although their capitulation to AQ may have brought the attacks to London.

Maybe it was smallish compared to what's BEING planned, right now while we sit here.

I'm English. I currently live in the U.S. and have since 1984. I was in Knightsbridge, London during Christmas of 1983. My Mum and Dad and I were there to see a play. Personally, I find your "9/11 woke up the world" offensive and a typically isolationist American view. You're in the club now, but you're new inductees. The world didn't start caring simply because America walked through the door.

[TheAnvil 0]

Don't hold back in sharing your thoughts with us all, by any means. LoL.

Quote

terrorists operating on a worldwide base are by any means more successful than you can imagine in your little corner of the world – even if this little corner is situated somewhere in BIG u.s.

just one point of how successfull they are: you've got things like a department of homeland security, your laws have been enforced dramatically eating away tons of "your constitutional rights" and you still applaud.

Hmm...one wonders at how you would define success for the terrorists. As a result of their operations, we changed the way in which our government operates. I don't recall the creation of a Homeland Security department being a goal of any terrorist organization - perhaps you're familiar with one and would care to share. Perhaps not.

To which Constitutional right are you referring, when you say that tons of our Constitutional rights are being eaten away?

Quote

we've got the same bullshit developing over here in europe too.

Fighting terrorism is bullshit? I think not.

Quote

and then the great michele turns up and says "I think we are quite successfull in "our" war on terror"

One can argue that point I suppose, though I for one agree that we've seen some modicum of success.

Quote

"You" wouldn't need a "War on terror" if "you" weren't so busy producing new terrorists all over the place

Hmmm...to what exactly are you referring here?

Quote

before this gets me to mad - over & out

I think you're mad already from the tone of your post.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[sundevil777 102]

The term terrorist/terrorism isn't very useful because it is hard to define.

What is essential is that Al Qaeda has explicitly declared war against us. Many would deny that we are at war. Many would choose to pretend like it is just a nuisance, treat it as a law enforcement issue and provide more resources to police, 'first responders', hospitals, etc.

I think we should take the war to them. Sovereign governments have decided to help Al Qaeda and other groups wage war against us. The leadership of much of the Arab and Muslim world is either encouraging it, or pretending to condemn it in public while praising it in private with their followers. When their leadership changes their tune, then the followers will follow.

Time to choose sides.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[happythoughts 0]

Clicky This is a short read. It talks about the terrorism problems of France.

In the 80's, there seemed to be no end to the bombings in France. Some groups even fought each other on French soil. By the mid 90's, French intelligence was becoming much more skilled at preventing such attacks.

The focus and techniques of their intelligence community have changed. The US should learn from that and compress the learning curve from years to months.

Living with terrorism is like living with most bad events that are possible. People look at it rather statistically and don't think it will happen to them. Car accidents, natural disasters, and unnatural ones.

There is only so much that any person or govt can truly do.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Look. Maybe I am being naive. Maybe I'm just optomistic. Maybe I'm just a fool whistling in the dark. Maybe, though, I see things a tad differently than you do.

Which of course you are entitled to do, but you really are being naive if you believe there is any victory or thwarting of ANY terrorist organization.

I won't say they were "thwarted", but what of Sinn Fein (sp?) and the IRL in the UK? Prior to the peace process there, London seemed (to me) to be able to establish its resolve over their opponent to facilitate the process.

I'll bring up another, Hamas in Lebanon. They are still armed, ready to rock-n-roll, however they are waiting. Thwarted? No, but definitely placated since Syria removed its overt presence in the area. Could they evolve into a legitimate political force? It's possible. Arguably, it's what the colonies did after the UK left the new world.

Quote

Quote

Do I think there will be more attacks? Certainly. Do I think they'll be on the level of 9/11 or greater? Perhaps. But considering what's happened since the west was galvinized into fighting terror for real rather than just a bomb or two at an aspirin factory, or turning down several chances at apprehending OBL during other administrations, I think that activities are slowing down...if not in number of attacks (although I still think it's lower), in the total killed and the effects on the western world.

You insist on talking about the western world. The U.S. was galvanized after 9/11, the U.S. are now aware and awake.

I have to disagree there. The US was not galvanized prior to 9/11 and the western world was definitely not engaged on their end. The US had been engaged by the "enemy/Al Qaeda" since at least 1993. Al Qaeda, essentially a product of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, was emboldened greatly once the USSR left. This is still in the minds of "rebels" in Chechnya who believe the Russian Bear can be beaten again. Thisi is also in the minds of several parts of Africa, still under ostensive control of France.

Al Qaeda's crosshairs turned onto the US during and after the first Gulf War. Despite attacks against the US directly (WTC1, Cole, Embassies) it took 9/11 for a real "coordinated" effort to be attempted on a global scale.

Quote

Quote

Do I think what happened in London sucks? Absolutely. But I also think it was smallish, compared to what could've been carried out. Same thing with Spain, although their capitulation to AQ may have brought the attacks to London.

Maybe it was smallish compared to what's BEING planned, right now while we sit here.

I'm English. I currently live in the U.S. and have since 1984. I was in Knightsbridge, London during Christmas of 1983. My Mum and Dad and I were there to see a play. Personally, I find your "9/11 woke up the world" offensive and a typically isolationist American view. You're in the club now, but you're new inductees. The world didn't start caring simply because America walked through the door.

The world still doesn't care. Shit, I think I'm angrier about the London bombings than most of the people I'm seeing on TV. I'd like to see the folks across the pond get a little more steel in their voice. Regardless of "size" this, reportedly, is one of the largest acts of terror in London's history (no, I'm not counting WWII). London's Mayor sounded off with a good deal of resolve, but I'm pretty disappointed in PM Blair's response, and my own President's words.

Christmas 1983? I recall an IRA bombing at Harrods around that time, is that what you're talking about? Regardless 9/11 - USA, did wake up the world. Not Munich, not Lebanon, not Tehran, not Kuwait, not PanAm 103, , and I submit you need to remind yourself, acutely of that day. People from 60 countries died that day, including over 100 from the UK.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Look. Maybe I am being naive. Maybe I'm just optomistic. Maybe I'm just a fool whistling in the dark. Maybe, though, I see things a tad differently than you do.

Which of course you are entitled to do, but you really are being naive if you believe there is any victory or thwarting of ANY terrorist organization.

Quote

I won't say they were "thwarted", but what of Sinn Fein (sp?) and the IRL in the UK? Prior to the peace process there, London seemed (to me) to be able to establish its resolve over their opponent to facilitate the process.

I'll bring up another, Hamas in Lebanon. They are still armed, ready to rock-n-roll, however they are waiting. Thwarted? No, but definitely placated since Syria removed its overt presence in the area. Could they evolve into a legitimate political force? It's possible. Arguably, it's what the colonies did after the UK left the new world.

The IRA are by no means gone. They withdrew from the Ulster peace process at the beginning of this year. There were a few years at the end of the 90's where London did not suffer any terrorist attacks, but when you look at decades instead of a few years, terrorism has not subsided.

I'll make the point again, at any one time, there are countless groups that are plotting there own private little revolution. They won't all go away, ever. When one fades, another one will be there. How are they placated? By some agreement being made. The problem is, there is always a part of the group that isn't happy with the agreement, and then, another extremist fanatical group is born.

Quote

Quote

Do I think there will be more attacks? Certainly. Do I think they'll be on the level of 9/11 or greater? Perhaps. But considering what's happened since the west was galvinized into fighting terror for real rather than just a bomb or two at an aspirin factory, or turning down several chances at apprehending OBL during other administrations, I think that activities are slowing down...if not in number of attacks (although I still think it's lower), in the total killed and the effects on the western world.

You insist on talking about the western world. The U.S. was galvanized after 9/11, the U.S. are now aware and awake.

Quote

I have to disagree there. The US was not galvanized prior to 9/11 and the western world was definitely not engaged on their end. The US had been engaged by the "enemy/Al Qaeda" since at least 1993. Al Qaeda, essentially a product of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, was emboldened greatly once the USSR left. This is still in the minds of "rebels" in Chechnya who believe the Russian Bear can be beaten again. Thisi is also in the minds of several parts of Africa, still under ostensive control of France.

You seem to be saying essentially the same thing that I am. I'm talking about public, not governmental concern. 9/11 caused the U.S. public to sit up and take personal notice. Shit, maybe the rest of the world should be pissed off that it took 9/11 for the U.S. public to really care about what was going on outside their country.

Quote

Al Qaeda's crosshairs turned onto the US during and after the first Gulf War. Despite attacks against the US directly (WTC1, Cole, Embassies) it took 9/11 for a real "coordinated" effort to be attempted on a global scale.

Because the U.S. is a superpower, and their governmental allies will stand next to the big dog. I would disagree that the PUBLIC of any other nation cared MORE after 9/11.

Quote

Quote

Do I think what happened in London sucks? Absolutely. But I also think it was smallish, compared to what could've been carried out. Same thing with Spain, although their capitulation to AQ may have brought the attacks to London.

Maybe it was smallish compared to what's BEING planned, right now while we sit here.

I'm English. I currently live in the U.S. and have since 1984. I was in Knightsbridge, London during Christmas of 1983. My Mum and Dad and I were there to see a play. Personally, I find your "9/11 woke up the world" offensive and a typically isolationist American view. You're in the club now, but you're new inductees. The world didn't start caring simply because America walked through the door.

Quote

The world still doesn't care.

I didn't say the world doesn't care. I said they didn't START caring BECAUSE of 9/11.

Quote

Shit, I think I'm angrier about the London bombings than most of the people I'm seeing on TV. I'd like to see the folks across the pond get a little more steel in their voice. Regardless of "size" this, reportedly, is one of the largest acts of terror in London's history (no, I'm not counting WWII). London's Mayor sounded off with a good deal of resolve, but I'm pretty disappointed in PM Blair's response, and my own President's words.

Well, part of that is probably a substantial cultural difference between Americans and Britons. I'm guessing that you're using number of dead as your "one of the largest", but as far as number of incidents, this is one in a long line. I'm really not sure what is leading you to make that statment.

Christmas 1983? I recall an IRA bombing at Harrods around that time, is that what you're talking about? Regardless 9/11 - USA, did wake up the world. Not Munich, not Lebanon, not Tehran, not Kuwait, not PanAm 103, , and I submit you need to remind yourself, acutely of that day. People from 60 countries died that day, including over 100 from the UK.

***

Yep, the Harrods bomb. Luckily, my parents and I had moved away from the spot where we'd been looking at all the pretty Christmas decorations. That was the closest I personally came to terrorism, but not the first or last experience I had with it. I grew up being evacuated from school onto our tennis courts because of bomb scares. Granted, all false alarms or pranks, but the idea of that happening was not at all foreign and was taken in stride each time.

Again, the world was not asleep prior to 9/11. Why do I need to remind myself of those events? You seem to be implying that I'm not adequately disturbed by it. I resent that, and I would say that you have misread my statements if you are inferring that I thought it was anything less thant a massive and atrocious event.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Which of course you are entitled to do, but you really are being naive if you believe there is any victory or thwarting of ANY terrorist organization.

Not trying to win would be worse.

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Not trying to win would be worse.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have not said, or implied, that we simply throw up our hands and say "well, we can't win, so we shouldn't bother doing anything".

I'm saying that having a Pollyanna attitude about the current strength of terrorist organizations could be devastating.

You certainly stated the first part - we can't win (OVER AND OVER), and I think it implies the second.

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Quote

I have not said, or implied, that we simply throw up our hands and say "well, we can't win, so we shouldn't bother doing anything".

I'm saying that having a Pollyanna attitude about the current strength of terrorist organizations could be devastating.

You certainly stated the first part - we can't win (OVER AND OVER), and I think it implies the second.

Why does it imply that? Haven't you ever heard of a stalemate? Do you believe that there is victory over terrorism in the long term?

[billvon 2,989]

>You certainly stated the first part - we can't win (OVER AND OVER),
>and I think it implies the second.

Which battle did we win that let us win the Cold War?

We 'won' the cold war by not fighting it. Which was a good thing; it likely would have ended the world as we know it. We figured out, just in time, that violence is not always the best solution. Now we just have to take the lesson to heart.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

>You certainly stated the first part - we can't win (OVER AND OVER),
>and I think it implies the second.

Which battle did we win that let us win the Cold War?

We 'won' the cold war by not fighting it. Which was a good thing; it likely would have ended the world as we know it. We figured out, just in time, that violence is not always the best solution. Now we just have to take the lesson to heart.

Grenada!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[kelpdiver 2]

We won the economics battle, the technology battle, and more often than not, the people battle - save where the people didn't care so much about communism or capitalism versus not being a colony anymore.

It's totally inaccurate to say we didn't fight in the Cold War, and quite a few died because of it. And in this newer era, we're still sending troops to fight in far flung parts of the globe.

You're more strongly implying than the other guy that this problem will go away if we stop fighting it. That's a popular solution around SF - turn the other cheek and let peace win. Worked great for Jesus.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

turn the other cheek and let peace win. Worked great for Jesus.

Well, there are close to 2 billion Christians in the world, so I guess it did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

We 'won' the cold war by not fighting it.

That's funny. We fought the cold war and fought it hard.

We didn't fight a 'hot war', we fought a cold war instead - (knowing that's what you meant).

No bombs dropped on anything (sort of), but an entire nation self-bankupted to achieve that goal (maybe 2 and more nations if you think about it).

If it had escalated to armed conflict who knows how it would have turned out? (anywhere from quick and tactical and over with a better world as much as 30-40 years ago - to total world destruction - and a bunch of idiots strenuously arguing both hypothetical extremes). Without your time machine, you can't say whether better or worse, just make a bunch of assumptions based on personal biases on how these are conducted.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chuteless 1]

I wish there was a way in which AlQaeda could be beaten. They are a more sophisticated enemy that the guerilla war you Americans lost in Vietnam, and there is NO WAY you will ever beat the murderous cowards of Al Qaeda.

America is going down the tubes, and will not recover from this, no matter what anyone thinks. I guess that is the new "American Dream"....that America will survive....but thats all it is....a dream.



edited for a spelling error

[billvon 2,989]

>We didn't fight a 'hot war', we fought a cold war instead . . . .

Exactly. "War" gets overused lately - there's a war on terror, a war on cancer, even a war on illiteracy. Anything people don't like gets a war declared against it. It's a powerful word so people like to use it. But its basic meaning is a military action where you kill people and destroy property until you win, and we didn't do that - because we were smart enough not to. The reason we won the cold war is that it never _became_ a real war. Instead, it was 'fought' in the UN, and in boardrooms, and on TV, and in the newspapers. And that's the best place to fight a war like that.

That's how we will eventually 'win' the 'war on terror.' Not by killing so many Arabs that they stop hating us, but by switching from killing men, women and children to making it impossible to be an effective terrorist. Start taking the hundreds of billions we're spending on war, and start spending that money on better border defenses, better port security, better coast guard coverage, better communications with allies. Start rebuilding the bridges we've burned; heck, most arrests of Al Qaeda leaders have happened through our allies (yes, including France.)

>who knows how it would have turned out? . . . Without your time
> machine, you can't say whether better or worse . . .

I don't think even the most die-hard, war-loving conservative could imagine a scenario where hundreds of nuclear weapons used against the US could lead to a US that's better than the one we have now.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Instead, it was 'fought' in the UN, and in boardrooms, and on TV, and in the newspapers. And that's the best place to fight a war like that.

It was fought in defense spending in the US and allies, with the Russians building titanium hulled subs resulting in starving their own people and devastating their economy. Certainly not in the media except as maybe an afterthought.

Quote

That's how we will eventually 'win' the 'war on terror.' Start taking the hundreds of billions we're spending on war, and start spending that money on better border defenses, better port security, better coast guard coverage, better communications with allies. Start rebuilding the bridges we've burned; heck, most arrests of Al Qaeda leaders have happened through our allies (yes, including France.)

Sometimes you have to go to the source. And the UN does need to establish credibility themselves in these areas and rebuild those bridges. It's not a one-sided argument no matter how much many portray it.

Quote

I don't think even the most die-hard, war-loving conservative

Very tasteless and offensive, even for you

Quote

hundreds of nuclear weapons used against the US could lead to a US that's better than the one we have now.

had a 'hot war' escalated, some people will automatically 'assume' full nuclear exchange because they still can't attribute anybody in a uniform being human. The truth is there is an infinite number of scenarios that could have formed from this area. Since we (I believe, foretunately) never reached that scenario, this assumption is only that. An assumption void of fact.

I don't believe a hot war would have been preferable, I only admit that we cannot know for sure and that it's arrogant to assume either way. (Gist is we live with the real decisions we've made and go forward. Hindsite speculation is fruitless even if it's a big bit of fun for forum posters)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,989]

>And the UN does need to establish credibility themselves in these
> areas and rebuild those bridges. It's not a one-sided argument no
> matter how much many portray it.

I wasn't talking about the UN. The US has to do whatever it can to rebuild its alliances strained by recent wars. The UN might be one way to do it, but certainly not the only way.

>some people will automatically 'assume' full nuclear exchange
>because they still can't attribute anybody in a uniform being human.

Not an assumption. MAD was a stated defense strategy. It even worked!

>I don't believe a hot war would have been preferable, I only admit
> that we cannot know for sure and that it's arrogant to assume
>either way.

Hmm. It's arrogance to assume a nuclear exchange is to be avoided, because it has very bad results? If so, call me arrogant. I'd be happy to be seen as an arrogant nut who would prefer nuclear weapons not be used against the US (or against anyone, for that matter.)

[Ripple 0]

Although I believe the notion that anyone is winning the 'war on terrorism' is incorrect, I think three points are worth noting.

Firstly we did not lose anything of any defence, security or financial importance. Secondly, many more lives could have been lost. Lastly, despite a few being traumatised too badly to return to 'normal', the majority are business as usual.

These points, I believe, speak volumes for the effectiveness of our security measures, our responses, as well as the astounding resilience of the British people. Thus, it is becoming increasingly hard for terrorists to act, certainly in the UK.

However, it is my belief that any 'war' will merely sustain and promote terrorist activity. If we wish to quell Al Qaeda, then we must prevent them access to resources - human resources in particular.

At the moment, Al Qaeda has any number of new recruits and supporters, upset, disenfranchised, angry because of the perceived, and actual, image of the west. I believe that the only way to stop perpetuating this situation is to ally ourselves with the potential foe - much as the British did in the Malayan Emergency.

The Iraq situation seems to have too many similarities to Vietnam...

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Hmm. It's arrogance to assume a nuclear exchange is to be avoided, because it has very bad results? If so, call me arrogant. I'd be happy to be seen as an arrogant nut who would prefer nuclear weapons not be used against the US (or against anyone, for that matter.)

That came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the passage you 'replied' to. You always read things wrong on purpose.

Quote

I'd be happy to be seen as an arrogant nut who would prefer nuclear weapons not be used against the US

I think you are completely out of line to be promoting chemical and biological warfare against the US by the UN. Why would you think that's preferable to diplomatic sanctions? ((actually, that's kind of fun - I can see why you do it))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,989]

>That came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the passage you 'replied' to.

You said it was arrogant to assume a 'hot war' (which, in the framework of the cold war, meant a nuclear exchange) would be worse. So call me arrogant.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>That came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the passage you 'replied' to.

You said it was arrogant to assume a 'hot war' (which, in the framework of the cold war, meant a nuclear exchange) would be worse. So call me arrogant.

Only when it's an assumption that a nuclear exchange would occur is presented as undisputed fact. Not that nuclear war is bad - that would just be grossly simple. This is going nowhere. forget it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The reason we won the cold war is that it never _became_ a real war. Instead, it was 'fought' in the UN, and in boardrooms, and on TV, and in the newspapers. And that's the best place to fight a war like that.

Seemed pretty hot in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua, among many examples. Let's stop pretending the cold war didn't have any fighting. Because of the risk of nuclear escalation, all battling was done by proxy, but it certainly happened.