Thread: How to combat terrorism better

Originally Posted by Texpat

Who did he declare jihad against?

The West in genaral, the US in particular because you had the overwhelming majority of the foreign forces. Yes you had company- Us. The blowback hits us as well- I recently mentioned the Madrid/London/Bali bombings. I forgot to mention the Turkish bombings though.

Originally Posted by Texpat

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

Yes, why? Iraq obviously gave them a huge opportunity- for a while there, Iraq was the largest source of new recruits for AQ. With the overthrow of Saddam, bin Ladens ambition of turning Iraq from a secular state into an Islamic theocracy suddenly became attainable. Using their time honoured techniques of widespread terrorism and violence, and fostering internecine violence, they were in there in short order capitalising on the situation. Did I mention Blowback?

The greatest Blowback of all came about by arming, training and funding them in the first place of course.

Originally Posted by sabang

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.

A bit like the American settler terrorists back in the 18th Century....

Originally Posted by Texpat

Sorry Sputter, wrong again. I was there, on the ground in Saudi talking to real, live Saudi military members. You can try to revise the facts all you want, but these guys thought the invasion of their country was emminent

yeah right, the threat was overplayed by the usual suspects and went down all the hierarchy, using the usual brainwashing techniques well known to the US government. The local SA military were probably convinced and fooled by the same hierarchy that did it to you. I suggest your research those "fake" satellite pics that were shown as proof of immediate threats. I think there is even a wiki somewhere about it. Think outside the box, and maybe you will start getting a clue.

Originally Posted by Texpat

The Saudi King and the people were glad the coalition was there. If you've read something to the contrary, it is incorrect.

SA is not a representative democracy, the people have no voice, so how can you claim such a thing ? did you personally ask them ? however the consensus on the streets from CIA reports was that "infidels" were moving into the Holly Land and that was highly unpopular. How do you think AQ got so strong there ? they waited for an excuse and they got it.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Unfortunately, the UK government has misguided loyalty;

They should join the French in the EU, and let go of their master.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Just how far should the US retreat from its global police role?

What kind of retreat is the question. If it's helpful, then it's all good and nobody is complaining, however in many instances it hasn't helpful and actually lethal and dangerous. Those fucks at the top need to be held responsible for their misjudgement.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Unfortunately, the UK government has misguided loyalty;

They should join the French in the EU, and let go of their master.

Hmmm... on second thoughts...

Originally Posted by Butterfly

yeah right, the threat was overplayed by the usual suspects and went down all the hierarchy, using the usual brainwashing techniques well known to the US government.

And the SCUD missiles inbound to King Fahd Airport had nothing to do with it.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/madias/qtr4/1105.htm

You're a piece of work, all conjecture and wishful thinking. Don't let facts get in the way.

Originally Posted by Texpat

And the SCUD missiles inbound to King Fahd Airport had nothing to do with it

maybe a credible link would do, and a few SCUD is hardly an invasion plan, ask Kosovo

^^^
let me see if i've got this straight...you're chastising someone about conjecture...and you cite some blog called the american partisan?

here's the "editor and publisher"...

Originally Posted by chinthee

^Yes. full stop.

We're talking about meddling with neighbour's business. Had a look at the globe but couldn't find Iraq sharing any border with the US of A.

So no full stop there.

^Macha, no border sharing, but a deep and vested interest in protecting global oil flows from the most important region.

You can say the policy was flawed, and I agree, but the goal was the global protection of energy sources. As far as the US controlling or hoarding the Iraqi supply, I think we've seen that the US hasn't done that, contrary to fatalists. Today, oil is $120/bbl, and pump prices are at an all time high in the U.S.

Again, this is a matter of scale. The US, as the sole hyperpower in the world, and upon whom many other global economies depend (e.g., China) has far-reaching interests and implications.

This is not a simple matter of a small nation protecting its border. It's much bigger than ever seen in history before, probably.

Probably don't believe Wiki either. You know they're controlled by the White House.

"Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and bordering areas of Saudi Arabia. Iraq also launched missiles against targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel in retaliation for their support of the invading forces in Kuwait."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

^ I don't deny that happened. It was also piss weak, and ineffectual. Lets sweat the big stuff- this is a Big Issue Thread.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Iraq also launched missiles against targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel in retaliation for their support of the invading forces in Kuwait."

that's right, retaliations, now where is that link about an immediate invasion ?

keep digging,

Originally Posted by Chitown

How to combat terrorism better

For starter:

1. Solution to Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
2. Stop installing Western puppets as the head of Muslim states.
3. Withdraw all US troops out of ME.
4. Live and let live (no foreign policy that challenges another country's sovereignty).

This will hopefully help a lot.

It would be very nice to see the US of A giving financial aid to third world countries in the field of education not military. The tax-payers money never gets spend on buying the tools. Most of your tax-payers' money lands in to bureaucrats' personal bank accounts.

1. THat's not too tall an order. Why don't they figure it out themselves? Why is it up to someone else to unfuck their problems?
2. How can a country install a leader of another free country?
3. I don't know a single GI who would disagree with that. An absolute shithole.
4. So sit idly by while the Hutus and Tutsis slaughter themselves?

^Actually, we all did sit idly by while the slaughter occurred in Rwanda. Why? Because the UN couldn't act. They were inert, as usual. Nobody can act, just cry about it.

Let the US withdraw worldwide and watch the tears flow.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Let the US withdraw worldwide and watch the tears flow.

Or let the US invade worldwide and watch the tears flow.

This thread specifically is asking how to combat terrorism better.

I doubt many, if any, think a total US disengagement from the World is the answer. I doubt the majority think the invasion of Iraq (misleadingly billed as part of the WOT) was an answer either.

How to do better? Not just the US btw, the West in general.

Originally Posted by Texpat

1. THat's not too tall an order. Why don't they figure it out themselves? Why is it up to someone else to unfuck their problems?

Simple answer really if you had bothered using your head. Don't fuck in the first place.

2. How can a country install a leader of another free country?

Karzai, Iyad Alvi, Nuri Al Malaki .... the list goes on and on and on and on.

3. I don't know a single GI who would disagree with that. An absolute shithole.

Absolute shithole but you guys are still there! Are you guys shit eating creatures or what?

4. So sit idly by while the Hutus and Tutsis slaughter themselves?

So what you're saying is that America always go to rescue people who get slaughtered? Where was the mighty US of Awhen millions of people get slaughtered in Africa? No natural resources, no help?

Originally Posted by sabang

How to do better? Not just the US btw, the West in general.

1. you can't have a war on a tactic.
2. despite all the war mongering rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is a law enforcement issue.

^Law enforcement is difficult and largely ineffective with global terrorists, and even more difficult to do extra-territorially.

Intrapol is not equipped for this. What do you suggest, Mr. Ray?

Still war is not the ultimate solution. History is a witness. War itself is a terrorism as people gets killed indiscriminately.

Originally Posted by machangezi

Still war is not the ultimate solution.

It may well be the only solution left if all, and I mean all, other options have been tried. The only thing "ultimate" about war is it results in ultimate disaster for those caught in the line of fire.

Originally Posted by Texpat

To think we've suddenly reached a point where we won't fight anymore is naive.

thinking we can solve any issues with war is beyond naive, it's plain stupidity, and the Iraq war is the living proof of that