Thread: How to combat terrorism better

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by sabang

Does it occur to most Americans that the majority of world criticism is not about the combatting of Terrorism as such, but the highly unsuccesful way we think you are going about it? There is a big difference you know.

Bingo, right on Sabang, thanks for the reminder

I would like to hear some ideas on how to do combat terrorism better. Do you have any suggestions or sure fire cures for the problem?

I have asked this question before and no one ever answers. I can only assume that they have no idea how to deal with the problem of terrorism. I don't know the answer so I do not expect you to either.

I know the answer is not to sit back and do nothing but paint a big target on yourself. They will not stop. It would not matter if we invaded Iraq or not. They have an agenda and are actions or lack of actions have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by chitown

I would like to hear some ideas on how to do combat terrorism better. Do you have any suggestions or sure fire cures for the problem?

At last a positive question- actually one I have written about at some length. This ain't the Thread to go into great detail though. Hell, I'm gonna split it.

To get the ball rolling, acquaint yourself with the term 'Blowback'. No matter where you stand politically, I highly recommend Chalmers Johnsons trilogy- well maybe not Tex, he's too thin skinned to criticism.

911- Blowback. Stated retribution for the US military 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia (the Holy Land). Carried out by Al Qaeda, an even more radical Islamic offshoot of the Afghani Mujahadeen, which was largely funded and armed by the US and UK to act as a resistance to the Russian military involvement in Ghan. Ditto the USS Cole bombing.

The Madrid/ Bali/ London bombings- Blowback. Direct retribution for UK, Aussie & Spanish involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Worryingly, Madrid and London were home grown terrorist atrocities.

Let the Game commence......

^ been attending church recently?

Stated retribution for the US military 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia (the Holy Land)

The US military was in Saudi (along with the French and UK) at the request of the Saudi government and the King.

There was a real fear among Saudis that Iraq would invade during the first Gulf War. Even after Iraq was pushed back, the Saudis welcomed the coalition forces enforcing the southern no fly zone from bases in Riyhad, al Karj, and others.

Economic investment in the Arab counties, to provide more jobs.
Encourage democracy in these same countries.

People, especially the youth who have no perceived future, turn to religious extremism.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

People, especially the youth who have no perceived future, turn to religious extremism.

Turn to or are driven to?

^
Both. The result is the same.

If people are busy building careers and making money, they have a stake in society and won't want to upset the apple cart.

Originally Posted by Texpat

There was a real fear among Saudis that Iraq would invade during the first Gulf War.

actually not true, that was all cooked by the Bush Sr administration to create a need that didn't exist. Little did they know that they created something bigger than they would have expected, the renaissance of Islamic terrorism and 911

Originally Posted by Texpat

Even after Iraq was pushed back, the Saudis welcomed the coalition forces enforcing the southern no fly zone from bases in Riyhad, al Karj, and others.

The King of SA is not the people, and he is seen as a western corrupted leader so having him welcome foreigners troops wasn't a good sign of good things to come, or a warrant of no terrorism to come, au contraire, so technically we can say that Bush Sr is responsible for 911, he created the situation

besides which, the chasm between the perceived threat of terrorism and the actual threat is gaping.

if us citizens are afraid to leave their homes, you can thank some of the greatest rhetoric ever seen by an administration.

^Says the man whose country is being overrun as we speak. That's rich.

This thread, while maybe good intent, will go nowhere because of close-minded, head-buried thinking and an unbridled desire to snipe ... like that.

Originally Posted by Texpat

This thread, while maybe good intent, will go nowhere because of close-minded, head-buried thinking and an unbridled desire to snipe

you should still feel free to keep posting though....but you might want to tone down the anger.

American government needs to acquaint itself with the term "blow-back" as Sabang mentioned. Just a few examples of blow-backs:

Bin Laden is a blow-back (term used by CIA) same like Saddam and Mr. Noriega. The US armed Saddam to confront Iran. Noriega was once a CIA operative and Bin Laden ..... needless to say he was Mr. Regan's favourite freedom fighter, trained by the CIA.
All of them created by CIA blew back to their faces. Who to blame?

Originally Posted by Texpat

The US military was in Saudi (along with the French and UK) at the request of the Saudi government and the King.

If the US of A is so close to Saudi Monarchy then why do we see people getting beheaded in public? Why is American not doing anything to stop such inhumane activities? Or is it just about oil?

Macha, yes there has been lots of blowback by CIA meddling in a number of countries over the years. So, are suggesting CIA should never attempt to do that, and that all other countries will play by the same rules.

Do you expect Iran to play by the same rules in Iraq? Do you expect them to not meddle in Iraq should America leave?

Do you expect that in all countries around the world? Do we live in a Utopian state where neighboring countries don't try to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors, or in the affairs of distant states where they consider their affairs are at stake?

It's just that the size of the meddling has been relative to the size of the empire and its interests.

Actually bin Laden initially supported the deployment of US & other forces in Saudi as a base to expel Saddams Iraq from Kuwait. He was a bitter, declared enemy of Saddam secular Iraqi government- as an Islamic loonie, he is bitterly opposed to any secular Moslem state. He declared jihad because the US stayed on militarily in Saudi after the Kuwaiti operation was over.

Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but many analysts suggest that this was a supporting argument for the subsequent invasion of Iraq- to replace Saudi as the main US military platform in the ME, with Iraq. We don't read much of the Al Qaeda point of view, but the US withdrawal of all but a few troops from Saudi was gloated about as a victory for them- yet their 'jihad' continued.

Incidentally, the Russian troop deployment in Afghanistan was at the request of the Afghani government too. They wanted Russian support to combat a growing Islamic civil insurgency.

I think Western support for the mujihadeen was probably the greatest foreign policy blunder of the last half century- greater in it's ramifications than the invasion of Iraq.

Originally Posted by chinthee

there has been lots of blowback by CIA meddling in a number of countries over the years. So, are suggesting CIA should never attempt to do that

It would be a much better world if the CIA didn't exist. American service men dying in the ME is a direct consequence of the fuck-up generally known as the CIA. Unfortunately, the UK government has misguided loyalty; it would do much better looking to Europe than across the pond, but most Brits (especially the government) seem to have been brainwashed by rags such as The Sun and the Daily Mail.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

^ been attending church recently?

Na, too busy with bladdy Issues.

Originally Posted by sabang

Actually bin Laden initially supported the deployment of US & other forces in Saudi as a base to expel Saddams Iraq from Kuwait. He was a bitter, declared enemy of Saddam secular Iraqi government- as an Islamic loonie, he is bitterly opposed to any secular Moslem state. He declared jihad because the US stayed on militarily in Saudi after the Kuwaiti operation was over.

Who did he declare jihad against? The US? Because they stayed on militarily? We had company. But I think you know this.

Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but many analysts suggest that this was a supporting argument for the subsequent invasion of Iraq- to replace Saudi as the main US military platform in the ME, with Iraq. We don't read much of the Al Qaeda point of view, but the US withdrawal of all but a few troops from Saudi was gloated about as a victory for them - yet their 'jihad' continued.

Why would a jihad against the west continue if their objective of ridding Saudi of western powers (read US/UK/France) was attained?

Originally Posted by Chinthee

Macha, yes there has been lots of blowback by CIA meddling in a number of countries over the years. So, are suggesting CIA should never attempt to do that, and that all other countries will play by the same rules.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. CIA should make sure that they don't blow back to their faces. Leash them. Don't treat them like toilet papers as is true in OBL case.

Do you expect Iran to play by the same rules in Iraq? Do you expect them to not meddle in Iraq should America leave?

The US of A shouldn't be there in first place. Iran wasn't meddling with Iraqi affairs for years.

Do you expect that in all countries around the world? Do we live in a Utopian state where neighboring countries don't try to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors, or in the affairs of distant states where they consider their affairs are at stake?

No, I don't expect it world-wide. Neighbouring countries do meddle in each others affairs but to a certain extent. The US interference is too much, don't you think?

^Yes. full stop.

Originally Posted by Norton

To that end, changing the conditions that spawn terrorists must be considered a fundamental and huge part. Although terrorism can be drastically reduced by positive changes within environments spawning terrorist, it will never be completely eliminated, hence sensible and effective security measures need to be put in place.

Very sensible post. Terrorism will always be employed by resistance movements as a tactic against a larger, superior armed enemy. A more neutral term for this is assymetric warfare, or even guerilla warfare. Thus the term War on Terror is a farce.

The best ways to reduce terrorism? Specifically, against us? Well heres a few to start with-

1- A more enlightened foreign policy that learns from previous errors and does not repeat them ad infinitum. As a subset of this, a genuine appreciation of the term 'Blowback' and it's implications in the modern world.

2- A mature appreciation that an intrusive, invasive military foreign policy requires a gigantic surplus of military might and national resolve to be succesful against the enemy/resistance. Simply stated, the lessons of Vietnam. History shows, conclusively, that it is rarely worth it.

3- The best way to prevent Terrorism is not to indulge in it [Noam Chomsky]. We are Terrorists, too.

4- On a more geopolitically specific note, lets pull together and fix up the bladdy mess with the Israeli occupation of Palestine. That feeds and festers so many Islamic grievances, and acts as a justification for so much wrong, on all sides.

Top US commando says strain of war limits forces elsewhere

WASHINGTON - The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making such heavy use of the nation's Green Berets and other elite warriors that they cannot fulfill their roles in other parts of the world, the military's top commando told The Associated Press on Monday.

"We're going to fewer countries, staying for shorter periods of time, with smaller numbers of people than historically we have done," Adm. Eric T. Olson said in his first interview since becoming commander of U.S. Special Operations Command last July.

"That leaves us underrepresented" in Latin America, the admiral said.

In Latin America, as in other areas of greatest interest to the Special Operations Command, Green Berets deploy to friendly countries like El Salvador or Colombia to train local military forces.

Special operations units that are designated mainly for use in Africa and Europe, Olson said, also are under strength for their normal role in those regions because they, too, are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Top US commando says strain of war limits forces elsewhere - Yahoo! News

What do you think of this? Should we quit training friendly countries elite forces too? Just how far should the US retreat from its global police role?