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.

 

Where do we fight the War on Terror

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I just watched some MSNBC and got kinda angered at some of the "experts" they had on. Basically they were talking about the Attempted London car bombings and two of them took the discussion to where we should be fighting the war on terror.

Both of the speakers said that we shouldn't be in Iraq as "all we are doing is creating more terrorists, we should be in Afghanistan cause that's where Al Qaeda is". They were basically saying "If we weren't in Iraq there wouldn't be these terrorist attacks/attempts.

You may have your own opinion as to the Iraq war, that's fine. But the speakers seem to imply that all we have to do is just really focus on Afghanistan and the whole Al Qaeda network will just go away and we won't be "creating more terrorists".

It's not like the Islamic world likes us being in Afghanistan either. I intensely dislike Al Qaeda for attacking us and I am all for going after it's support mechanisms as well. Using the speakers logic wouldn't it just be better to leave Afghanistan as well and since we wouldn't be attacking any Islamic countries, Al Qaeda would just grow poppies and be a non factor.
The Jihadis that Al Qaeda inspire around the globe will not stop attacking the West IMO, we must battle AQ and other radicalizing forces in the region. If we were in just Afghanistan, all the new recruits of AQ would be going up there rather than Iraq. If the Islamic world doesn't like it then I suggest they clean up their own messes (there are multiple ones) before someone else really does.

By having AQ fight us in Iraq they are actually turning off both the Shia and Sunni populations in Iraq. They now hate AQ for killing civilians just as much if not more then the coalition forces in areas of Iraq.

What are your thoughts as to where and how the next stages of the WOT should be fought or not fought?




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Full withdrawal from all Islamic majority nations would still leave the other problem. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

You would still need to get Israel to give everyone equal rights, or withdraw themselves.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Full withdrawal from all Islamic majority nations would still leave the other problem. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

You would still need to get Israel to give everyone equal rights, or withdraw themselves.


So do you think that even if there is a "just" solution to the Israeli/Palestinian solution and there is a "full withdrawal" Islamic nations, that terrorist attacks from Islamic radicals will cease? I don't.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I think that continued occupation is sure to result in continued attacks on Israel and maybe more.

Forty years these people have been denied freedom. One way or another there must be a resolution. One option is for Israel to withdrawal. Another is for Israel to annex and give everyone citizenship and equal rights.

The poor choices would be continued occupation, or Mass Ethnic Cleansing.

The least popular would be the glass parking lot option, but it looks more likely every day.

Something must change or the violence will only accelerate.

What do you think the results should be?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai


Something must change or the violence will only accelerate.

What do you think the results should be?


I think there should be a Palestinian and an Israeli State in the area west of the Jordan River. Both sides must respect the other and live in peace with it's new neighbor.

I don't think that that resovles the hatred of the radicals in Islam however. In fact I would go as far as to say that they (the Islamic Radicals) would sacrifice the Palestinian people if they could erradicate Israel.

Even with a full Israel pullout and a Palestinian state established and no foreign troops in any Islamic countries, we would still have a major terrorism problem with Radical Islam.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The big mistake was the original idea that terrorism could be found in some specific place.

In Afghanistan there was a specific haven. Toppling the Taleban was a justified move.

As for Iraq, it was pure hocus pocus by the Bush administration to suggest Iraq under the Ba'athists was a haven to Islamic terrorists. Iraq was a socialist dictatorship under Saddam and he tolerated no challenge by Islamists.

riginally there was no Al Quaeda in Iraq. GW Bush had his own personal agenda for going into Iraq and conveniently tailored the facts to fit his agenda.

That is why most European governments did not support invasion of Iraq.

SS Colonel SS Otto Skorzeny wrote about unconventional warfare after WW2 that in future wars commanders will seek to create a front line everywhere.

Skorzeny understood what you and GW Bush don't seem to understand. That the nature of terrorism is that it does not exist in one place. You can't define it, find it or fight it by conventional means.

Had GW Bush not spent the Vietnam war trying to avoid military service with the help of daddy, he might have understood more about unconventional warfare. After all how did the North Vietnamese beat the most powerful military superpower ?

Take us further back in history. The American revolution of 1776 beat the British, by doing what insurgents are now doing against conventional US forces in Iraq today.

Iraq is a failure because those dictating the deployment there don't understand their enemy, nor how to fight terrorism. Most Americans in particular fail to understand what motivated the hatred of 9/11.

Until USA understands what drives Islamic terrorism it will not conquer it. Until USA grasps that terrorism does not exist in a place where you can go and "beat it" then you will never beat it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
^^ very well said there, i agree completely with you. We are not fighting an enemy with a sovereign state.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pendu
^^ very well said there, i agree completely with you. We are not fighting an enemy with a sovereign state.


That's true but how do you then fight such a entity? Do you just react to their pokes with sticks each time they launch an attack? Or do you "take em out where you find them"? The act of doing nothing will not get us the desired result.

It is not an easy war we are in, as most Islamic Extremists can easily blend back into the civilian population, a population that more often than not , looks the other way at their deeds and says nothing. Mainstream Islam (if there is such a thing in the Middle East) will soon be reaching a tipping point in it's actions. It will either have to weed out the Extremists themselves or risk being lumped with them.

The sad thing is that much of the Radicalizing of Islam currently going on is in two supposed allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They need to clean up their own house or things are really going to get bad. Tough tightrope both sides will have to travel to succeed, and time is running out.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join