How much has this war on terror actually achieved? Has it deterred terrorists from attacking the west? Has it been cost effective? When will it end? Are we tackling the root causes of terrorism?

Post what you think.

hello FD,

Achievements: Al Qaida higher ups caught, assets frozens, etc.

Deterred from attacking the west? Perhaps, as they are attacking westerners but not in the west (French tanker, US marines in Kuwait, Bali)

Cost effective? does it matter - safety first.

Roots of terrorism? What are those roots? The hatred taught by the mullahs across the ME are what I believe to be part of it. They don't tolerate the West, Jews and our way of life in general.

I'll tell you what: let's spend two days worth of bombing money, let's say $4 billion, to set up food/medicine banks that we physically set up and disburse, so no sheik or warloard gets the goods . Let's see what happens, huh?

Cost effective matters a whole hell of allot! Since the fight of terroism is a 'quality of life fight', doesn't it seem that bankrupting funding to essential social programs on the domestic front kind of erodes that 'quality of life' we're supposedly fighting for?

Originally posted by B0ut Time
I'll tell you what: let's spend two days worth of bombing money, let's say $4 billion, to set up food/medicine banks that we physically set up and disburse, so no sheik or warloard gets the goods . Let's see what happens, huh?

Will they say " thanks " ? I don't think so.
They'll ask for 8 billions, the next day we'll have to give them 16....and 32.....and 64.......There will be no rest for us. We'll have to give them all what we have. And when it will be done, the'll laugh from us and our stupidity. We will be less defences, but them, they'll have everything, and they'll slaughter us !!!

That's my toughts.

pheonix, would you care to explain the logic in your statement, because i can't understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

i agree with bout time. i would like to illustrate it with two examples of actual effective ellimation of terror: the IRA and the Tamul Tigers.

in both of these cases violence from controlling governments did not stop the terror. the terrorists just fought on. only through peaceful discussion, negotiation and development has any headway been made on these two fronts at all.

- qo.

You're right Quiet One, the diplomatic way is the better way to maintain peace in this world.

I'm only afraid this will never happen, because the ones on power doesn't want peace, they are like The Phoenix, they are full of hate.

It does no harm to reflect upon a couple of points: the first is that, while many potential terrorists have no doubt been arrested, imprisoned, disarmed, or blown to kingdom come, there are always more. Ultimately, one must at least consider treating the disease rather than the symptoms.
This leads to another point -the use of force to contain terrorism. It could work -ruthless military action will put an end to terrorism - the trouble is you have to become worse than the terrorists to do this.
There was little dissent in Stalin's Russia. Are we, as Westerners, prepared to cross that moral threshold?
American liberals still agonise over the internment of the japanese 60 years ago. Pragmatically, it was a very sound idea -morally, many are still unconvinced.
I have no doubt that ruthless internment and deportation would reduce the risk of terrorism, as would taking and shooting hostages or a final solution. But is that a road we want to follow?
And if we are hesitant, we must conclude that there is no answer that relies upon force and coercion.
There has to be new thinking. We in the West are no more godless infidels to Muslims than we were fifty years ago - but now they try to blow us up - and we are more dominant militarily than ever we were before. It can't just be Islam versus Christianity.
Agreed, they have more opportunities, travel is easier; but America's worst domestic terrorism was the wave of anarchist bombings in the late 19th century. If people, mad or otherwise, have a grievance -they'll find some way to commit terrorist acts.
We have to look beyond black and white or simplistic ascriptions of causes. Someone has to ask -why is it so much worse now?

by "America's worst", I am not, of course, comparing numbers with 9-11; but rather the effect on the core of American society and government.
9-11 caused enormous damage and loss but if anything it strengthened the American sense of national unity (albeit perhaps briefly and perhaps misleadingly) and, above all, a foreign attack (if such it was -and it probably was) is not as frightening as a domestic attack.

Originally posted by ThePhoenix01

We will be less defences, but them, they'll have everything, and they'll slaughter us !!!

That's my toughts.

SO, to plug numbers into your dementia, we allocate $4 Billion in food & meds to a terror hotspot ( one can't be an angry young man while healthy, with a full belly, and a job, can one?) and do the distribution so it doesn't go black market, thus laying the ground work for prosperity & growth in that region. THIS catches us in a cycle where we can't stop 'paying them' and our own defense budget is left so anemic we end up having zero safeguards and we get overrun ( on camel back I guess ) and slaughtered?
People of your ilk, as seen on the boards with your other far Right Wing cohorts, operate under such irrational fears that's it's no wonder you are all led round by the nose, critical thinking be damned.
Pity.

I'm sorry, BT, I couldn't understand you over your passing of gas.

True, diplomacy is much better and less costly - assuming the other side is sincere and not bent on your side's destruction. Appeasement, or the attempt, lit Europe afire last century, killing off the best and brightest of the world's human resources. The enemy thatwe now face sees mercy and compromise as weaknesses, and the eventual assimilation or destruction of the west as a divine command. The "fundamentalist" Muslims attack all over the world those who are not muslim, and the "moderate" mulsims not only fail to denounce the bloodshed but finance it.

It doesn't take a camel or a stealth bomber to attck civilians, as we've already seen. It takes people with suicidal resolve to smash planes into towers, strp bombs to themselves and walk into crowded pizzarias, or maybe even transport a hand-carriable nuclear device into downtown Manhatten to strike at us. All they need is an unchecked madman to equip them with the tools and training and "moderate" muslims to fund the logistics.

A terror hotspot BT, lets say SA. That's where a lot of the terrorists seem to be from. We just setup shop and start handing out food and medicine? (as if the saudi kingdom is poor). Will they stop teaching in their school text books that Jews should be killed? Shall we do this in the west bank too? Or should we ask Arafat to chip in as he's worth about 10 BILLION dollars (which a lot of probably came from the west I would bet). All this Arab charity they speak of is bologna. 10 Billion would go a long way for the Palestinians, my centrist friend. Do the math 10 billion dollars and there are 3 million Palestinians! But, as soon as they aren't starving Arafat is out of a job. You want to stop terrorism? Hold Arafat, the mullah's, and dictators accountable.

Originally posted by quiet one
pheonix, would you care to explain the logic in your statement, because i can't understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

in both of these cases violence from controlling governments did not stop the terror. the terrorists just fought on. only through peaceful discussion, negotiation and development has any headway been made on these two fronts at all.

- qo.

You can't argue with terrorists. " peaceful discussion and negotiation ". Unfortunately, they don't know & they don't understand these 3 words.

If I want to hit you, I'll do it. Even if you want to " speak " about peace with me.

You're really naive if you believe a terrorist.Terrorists don't care about us, so, I don't care about them.

Democratia can speak with others democratias, not with a dictator. With a dictator, you have to be more strong than him.Otherwise, he'll not listen you.He'll smash you !

But believe me, I would like to live in a peacefull world, without war, tortures, starving peoples, poor peoples. Unfortunately, I don't believe in Utopia anymore.

How do are supposed talk to people who are willing to fly planes into buildings.These cowards are not like the IRA. These Islamic terrorists want the destuction of the entire western world.Hamas has stated that is does not want peace,only the death of all Jew's.So until these terrorists decide to change there way of thinking,that killing innocent people,taking hostages,walking away from peace talks we are not left with much of a choice.Every time you start to feel sorry for them or think we are wasting or time,or being mean to them,just rember Daniel Pearl.He met up with the same kind of people you want to talk to.

I agree totally nyeff. Could someone, please, PLEASE, tell me how to go about diplomacy with terrorists?? Until then, I will laugh at the suggestion. The goals of the terrorists is our destruction. That's why they are terrorists. What's shall we negotiate? Perhaps, we can offer them our partial destruction? C'mon people. I don't want diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda - I want them dead.



[Edited on 25-10-2002 by Bob88]

Terrorists are dangerous. Pacifists are more far dangerous.

Alright U.P. you got your name back.Now things are back to normal.

To top it off hasn't anybody seen the values the slugs hold near and dear to their hearts.Woman are treated like dirt.No other religous faith is allowed.No freedom.Sorry but there is no way I want to live under their rules.You may not like Bush,but I bet you would like living under I slamic law's even less.

ThePhoenix01:

"You can't argue with terrorists. " peaceful discussion and negotiation ". Unfortunately, they don't know & they don't understand these 3 words."

wrong you can argue with terrorists. for example, Martin McGuiness, now head of education for northern ireland.

"If I want to hit you, I'll do it. Even if you want to " speak " about peace with me."

indeed, but be aware that hitting a terrorist back solves nothing. he'll just want to hit you even more.

"You're really naive if you believe a terrorist.Terrorists don't care about us, so, I don't care about them."

i believe a terrorist as much as i believe anyone. they have no more reason to lie or deceive. in fact, in manner ways they have less. if you don't care about them they will never care about you, and the violence can only continue.

"Democratia can speak with others democratias, not with a dictator. With a dictator, you have to be more strong than him.Otherwise, he'll not listen you.He'll smash you ! "

i'm not entirely convinced that 'democratia' is a word, but nevertheless ...
i entirely disagree with your opinion. you are generalising dictators, assuming that they are all 'out to get you'. in fact, they may well not be. this illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the people you hate, and why your ignorance and pig-headedness will only make the situation worse.

"but believe me, I would like to live in a peacefull world, without war, tortures, starving peoples, poor peoples. Unfortunately, I don't believe in Utopia anymore. "

then what do you believe in? a world where civilian casualties are 'acceptable collatoral damage'? # that ....

- qo.

Originally posted by nyeff
Hamas has stated that is does not want peace,only the death of all Jew's.So until these terrorists decide to change there way of thinking,that killing innocent people,taking hostages,walking away from peace talks we are not left with much of a choice.

Originally posted by Bob88
I don't want diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda - I want them dead. Or should we ask Arafat to chip in as he's worth about 10 BILLION dollars?

nyeff - I always thought they were for the destruction of the Israeli state, not genocide of a sister tribe?

Bob - You, and some folks, had taken a point about removing the catalyst to terror and gone off on a tangent that strengthens my point of irrational fear being your driving force. Feeding the starving & medicating the sick is not a 'cause & effect' solution to an immediate physical aggression, that's silly & I didn't say that, you ended up there by yourself. I have no problem with decimating a proven enemy camp site and killing all enemy combatants there.
I do have a problem with our "Ooops! We missed by THAT much" scatter bombing mistakes that kill innocents and end up being all the recruiting propaganda our enemies need to indoctrinate the next generation. I also see the folly in our Corporate Imperialism that takes ownership over wealth/resources in a foreign land while the citizens are beggars to their own birth right.
Just think of the anology of Spraying your crops with DDT - yeah, it kills the bugs, but is it going to be good for you in the long term?
And yes, it starts at the top with the governments.
I'm all for severely taking Saudi Arabia to task - but our president's family & those ruling families have been in bed together far too long.