It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has the US military been effective in the war on terror?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is an interesting topic of debate. Depending on your sources and your reasoning skills you can come to several conclusions.




Mrs. al-Rishawi’s family history reveals just how effective the U.S. military has proven to be in eliminating insurgents. Jordanian intelligence has learned that three of her brothers were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. Her brother, Thamir al-Rashawi, a member al-Zarqawi’s inner circle, was killed in April 2004 in Fallujah, when a missile fired from a U.S. aircraft struck his pick-up truck. Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan al-Mu’ashir described her brother, Thamir, as “the emir [commander] of the Al-Anbar region [of the Iraqi insurgency] in the Al-Qa’idah of Jihad Organization in the Land of Two Rivers. He was the right hand of Abu-Mus’ab al-Zarqawi.”

Her other two brothers, Ammar and Yassir, died in separate battles with U.S. forces in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005.

Mrs. Al-Rishawi’s sister had been married to a Jordanian explosives expert, Nidal Mohammed Arabiyat, also killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, according to Agence France Presse.

Though the American media is slow to report it, U.S. forces are relentlessly destroying Zarqawi’s senior leadership. A November 2 air strike killed two senior al Qaeda operatives in Iraq: Abu Zahra, the so-called Emir of Husaybah, ran all insurgent operations in that Iraqi city, and Asadallah, Zarqawi’s key recruiter. U.S. forces have now confirmed the identities of both dead terrorists.

On October 23, U.S. forces captured Abu Hassan, the head of al-Zarqawi’s media cell. Hassan was responsible for producing video tapes of insurgent attacks to give to al-Jazeera and other television networks. Hassan even produced forged police and press passes to allow insurgents to case targets and film the devastation following insurgent attacks.

link



I guess it all depends on where you stand, whom you listen to, what logic you tend to go by and how horrible you think the USA is. Oh let us not forget the conspiracy theories that run ramped. Do you believe the terror threat is real?




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Personally, I believe they are real. The terroists from the middle east threw the first stone. The CIA funded and helped the muhajadeen to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then they use the money and weapons against us by the bombings in 1993 of the WTC and then 9/11 and it continues to go on.

Also the Americans and British have rescued the Iraqi people from a cruel and horrible dictator. Although there are regular car bombs in Iraq, it's not as bad as being taken away in the middle of the night and killed, long with thousands of others.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think its BS, US gov't and co have been playing these terrorists against them to gain support from the masses.. The war on Iraq turned out to be alot more costly and complicated than they expected and thats why there is a delay in their advancement, if they had full control of Iraq without the insurgency, Iran and Syria would have been under siege by now.

Thats what I think anyway


[edit on 18-11-2005 by shire19]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
NO.

I think the US military has been effective in its campaign against the Taliban and against the Saddam regime in Iraq. Also effecive against the "insurgency".

In other words the US military is absolutely effective against its target.

HOWEVER,

The military is not fighting "Terror".
The "War on Terror" describes a conflict of IDEOLOGY (beliefs). It is a typical US propaganda catch phrase that is ill defined. In this regard, the US military can never win the "War on Terror".

Ironically, it seems the only threat that Zarqawi poses to the US is that towards the soldiers. The soldiers who were ordered to invade Iraq by their generals. Zarqawi threatens them because they are in Iraq. No apparent threat to our soil. Would Zarqawi be relevant if we had never gone in there in the first place?
Perhaps.
But if not, that is another terrorist threat that we created as a direct result of unecessary actions.

By the way Cogito, do you believe the Bush administration's official stories of:
1.) Who was behind the 9/11
2.) Who was behind the Anthrax attack that coincided with 9/11
3.) What were the reasons we HAD to invade Iraq IMMEDIATELY
?? (just to name a few)

Because to ask this question of yours, implies a fundamental belief in the official stories concerning these events.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
In general I think the military itself is doing as good a job as can be expected.

It's the people giving them their orders that have their heads up their behinds...



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
Personally, I believe they are real. The terroists from the middle east threw the first stone. The CIA funded and helped the muhajadeen to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then they use the money and weapons against us by the bombings in 1993 of the WTC and then 9/11 and it continues to go on.


Almost fell off my chair reading that, dig deeper and perhaps go further back than 1979.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I suppose if you dig a lot deeper it goes back hundreds, maybe thousands of years into religion. That's when I stop caring.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join