How is Saddam connected with your absract and frankly bizarre "War on Terror"?

For us it is. Indonesia just isn't doing anything to help. Before the Balki bombing, they said they had no terrorist problem. Suddenly...BOOM! Their tourist industry dropped like the Dow Jones on opening day after being closed after 9/11

Heck, the police even had info on this before the attack that something big was up: Police in Indnoesia found Docs last month with plans



THOMAS:

maybe because he is a terrorist.

Whats your definition of terrorist Goamerica?

People who kills people because they either don't follow their views (Osama) people who kill because others are a different ethnicity (Milosevic & Croatia, Bosnia, & Kosovo) or people who kill others because they don't like the current dictator (Saddam)

The man used terror to keep his people "in line", he used terror to keep himself in power, that's a terrorist.

CP

Those are noble if very broad definitions of terrorism goamerica.

My point is, is it Americas interest to see that all kinds of terrorism (according to your methodolgy) to be wiped out, or rather particular threats to America - for example anti-American groups/states?

Since if you plan to liqudate every dicator which kills people you'll be invading China, Russia, most of Africa, the vast majority of the Middle East, Texas (joke ), much of Asia, Central Asia etc

Are you sure about that? Sounds like you're describing our President & his administration.

And the problem with that is...

No problem, per se, but it goes against goamerica's general philosophy on this war, which is what prompted my question.

Um....since when has the Bush administration killed anyone for dissent in America?

You didn't qualify it earlier with the "in America" part. Hence my confusion - because Bush most certainly has advocated the killing of some (the Iraqi Republican Guard) because he does not like their leader (Saddam).

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you base your suggestion that the war on terror is working for America just on the basis of there being no additional attacks IN America? If so that's no proof at all. The last time they waited eight years between attacks on the WTC and there was no Bush declared War on Terror then. Obviously that wouldn't be a good indicator of wether or not it's working...especially since there HAVE been attacks on US interests in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and elsewhere.

I would just like to see your proof that the war on terror is working. Other than the nonsensical rebuttal that there have not yet been more attacks in America.

Once again we need to look at the big picture. We have thwarted numerous plots, many right here at home. We have arrested hundreds, maybe thousands, of terrorist suspects. We have gained the co-operation of an unprecedented assortment of nations in fighting this war.

Yes, there have been successful attacks. But it seems quite likely there would have been a great deal more if we hadn't responded the way we have.

How about the arrest of multiple cells in America and abroad plus the arrest of heads of the opposition group in the Phillipines (Abu Sayuf i think it is) and the arrests of heads of Al-Queda top enchlons. Also, the shutting down of lots of charities that have admitted to funding al-queda and other groups

You want me to give links? i can do that. But it would be a lot of links.

Yes, please give me some links. Also, keep in mind Graham's recent comment about there still being many cells still right here in the US.

Also, any recent reports of cells being arrested in Germany or France would be particularly helpful to your case since our diplomatic ties have been less than fruitful lately and those were cities right after 9/11 that had several cells captured. What have they found in the last six months or so, after our relations broke down?

Since some of the attacks were either carried out against or plotted to harm interests from both Germany and France, you're not seriously suggesting that they have eased up on their efforts because of their opposition to the war? That would be suicidal on their part, no?

Well, in that case, it is impossible to judge how well this war is going, so I guess there is no use criticizing it, or supporting it, there is no way of telling until 2009.

CP

The US has busted a suspected missile smuggling operation that would have targetting commercial jets in the US.
Suspected Missile Smuggler Charged With Trying to Support Terrorists

Another battle won in the War on Terror.

This missle bust is all over the news. It makes me wonder if this is the first real bust they've made in the 'war on terror'. I do think it's a significant win...but how come we haven't heard of more like it in the last two years?

Because living in America and having such liberal freedoms is a double edged sword and those that wish to do us harm use our freedoms against us and to their advantage. We have are one of the largest land mass nations with open boarders between states and porus boarders with Canada and Mexico.

We haven't had a bust quite like this before. An attempt to bring in an actual MANPAD system that was intercepted by the authorities and the culprits nabbed in a sting operation involving U.S., British, and Russian law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Good for us!

It is scary at the same time, since if people will attempt it then it makes you wonder if anyone else will succeed in the future or have already succeeded and are just waiting for the right moment to bring down a 747.

The system that was intercepted was an inert missile and could never have been used. However, it wasn't a run-of-the-mill older Soviet-era MANPAD like an SA-7, SA-14, or even SA-16; it was an SA-18, which is very advanced and can often defeat the countermeasures standard even on military aircraft. Which means the suspects involved had their sights set on acquiring something top of the line.

Always the pessimist. You must have forgotten about the 3 Al-Queda cells in the United States that were busted, the number of captured Al-Queda Leadership, etc.

*Iyman Faris, a U.S. citizen, has pleaded guilty to two counts of providing material support to terrorists, stemming from a variety of plots against targets in the United States, including the Brooklyn Bridge. As part of the plea agreement, Faris agreed to cooperate with authorities.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/GoodMorn...plea030619.html

*The arrest in Chicago last May of Jose Padilla, accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty" bomb

*The arrests of an alleged al-Qaeda cell in New York state.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576677.stm

*In May, six men living in the Buffalo, N.Y., suburb of Lackawanna pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism. The so-called Lackawanna Six — all of Yemeni descent — face sentences of between seven and 10 years in prison.

*... two alleged al Qaeda members in Detroit, and of a Seattle man accused of helping the Taliban.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/GoodMorn...plea030619.html

*...more than 200 criminal terrorism charges have been brought since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, ..., with 108 convictions or guilty pleas.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/new...ews/5315669.htm

*Zacarias Moussaoui

*Bin Laden British cell planned gas attack on European Parliament - foiled after German police smashed the Frankfurt operation in a series of raids

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh...9/16/wbin16.xml

*"There are two countries where operations have been compromised, and we have information on plots in other countries," State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said.

*In both foreign cases, the operatives were arrested, terrorist material was confiscated and the attacks were not carried out, said another State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...09p-65986c.html

*disrupted al Qaeda attacks against U.S. and British warships in the Straits of Gibraltar

http://us.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/t...nscripts.tenet/

:::::::::::::::::::::

I found these in about 30 minutes. I could sit here for hours and find one story after another and with enough time I MIGHT find 100 foiled plots, although more than likely some are not and will never be exposed so that sources aren't exposed.

Is the war on terrorism succeeding?

Did thwarting these terrorist plots save lives? There's your answer.

The only thing this war on terrorism has done is bring what always happened in the past more into the limelight.

We've always had the threat of terrorism, we've always had the CIA thwart one plan after another of terrorist acts.

But after 9/11 any bit of possible terrorist acts are now super hyped up in the news. Just do a standard search through the news BEFORE 9/11. You'll see not much has changed.

The War on Terrorism cannot be won by spreading terrorism. And bombing the hell out of someone and their family is, in their point of view, terrorism.

Terrorist acts breed more terrorism.

Just look at Iraq and the growing resistance.

What needs to be done is stop this whole "they are trying to destroy our American way of life" *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, and find out the REAL root of the problem and then work towards building a solution.

Rick,

Very good point. Would you like to share what you believe is the root problem? Maybe we could share those and some solutions?

Should we start another thread or does if fit in here?

We have the finest country in the world. The richest, most powerful, most convenient, and most free. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing to be sorry for. And nothing, nothing that could be construed as a 'root cause' for becoming the victim of horrendous terrorist attacks. That is akin to blaming the beautiful, sexy, 22 yr old woman for getting hersef raped because she was wearing a 'too-short skirt' or 'too low-cut blouse'.

You don't think that over a decade of camping out in the Middle East and patrolling the no fly zones created animosity?

Al Qaeda's chief representative and senior planner in Southeast Asia Arrested

As long as we keep that mindset, we'll never understand the enemy.

Who said they wanted to understand anything? No need when they can just bomb away all of our troubles.

How can you understand an enemy that doesn't care who they kill? As long as they inflict casualties, civilian or military, they don't care.

Unfortunately, whether or not they care about who they kill is irrelevant to the issue at hand: Understanding why they want to attack us, why they want to kill Americans, and why they believe we are their enemy.

I agree with Rickmanx that it has nothing to do with them wanting to "destroy our American way of life." I think its more about their beliefs and perceptions (whether correct or incorrect) that we meddle in middle eastern affairs and liberally enforce our interests from a position of military might.

It helps in this sort of situation to try and put yourself in the other guy's shoes, no matter how distasteful you find it, to try and understand why they think the way they do. Try this on for size:

Suppose the United States was not a free country until the 1970's, when the U.S. people rose up and overthrew a dictator installed covertly by the Iranian Intelligence Service in the 1950's. Now suppose that in the year 2003, Iran is still a global superpower that could project power anywhere on the globe with its sea-borne supercarriers, political clout, and economic muscle. Suppose the Iranians invaded Mexico on the grounds that the Mexican government was harboring anti-Iranian terrorists and wasn't making progress on cracking down on them to the Iranian's satisfaction (lets just say it's true, these terrorists really do exist and the Mexican government refuses to turn them over). The Iranian Army now occupies Mexico and is setting up a new Islamic government to replace the old one (to our South). They've also invaded Canada on the grounds that Canada is led by a dictator that is developing weapons of mass destruction and must be deposed before he threatens the Iranian homeland (again, for the sake of argument, lets just say it's true). They now have 150,000 well-trained Iranian soldiers occupying the Canadian provinces as they endeavor to set up yet another Islamic government to our North. The Iranians whole heartedlly believe they are doing the best thing and they are bringing a better way of life to the people of Mexico and Canada, bringing the blessings of Iranian Theocratic government to the people...

Sounds pretty crazy, doesn't it? But start thinking along these lines and you'll start to see how one middle eastern country probably views our involvement in their neighbors.

I am not saying that I believe they are correct in their beliefs. I am saying that there is a method to their madness and we'd better figure them out if we're going to fix these problems in the future.

To try to understand the reason our enemies attack is one step toward humanizing them in our perception. If we humanize them too much, we might have second thoughts about invading their countries and killing them. It just sort of takes the fun out of war.

Do not construe this as some attempt to justify the 9/11 attacks or demonize America for wanting revenge. But it is exactly this desire for revenge that fuels both sides in a conflict.

I'm glad that the terrorists are being rounded up in so many countries. But I am not sure that keeping them indefinitely and not giving them a trial is such a great idea. It wasn't so long ago that our soldiers were treated the same way in North Vietnam.

I am glad you brought that point up and I agree with you. I'd like to emphasize the point a little further by reversing it:

By demeaning our enemies and maligning their motives, painting them as irrational beings who want to kill us for no reason whatsover, we dehumanize them, making it easier to dismiss their position and justify whatever we feel like doing to them.

Sounds like what both sides do during wartime. We paint Al-Queda as irrational beings who want to kill us for no reason whatsover, muslims do the same to us. They say we kill for no reason whatsoever

So if we conciously recognize this, shouldn't we rise above it, and extricate ourselves from the insanity of it? Resist the temptation to demonize the other side and paint them as irrational beings who want to kill us for no reason whatsover, and try to understand them so we can extricate ourselves from the insanity?

Because we are so enticed into doing what the other guy does it is hard to separate oursleves from it

Arrested Terrorist planned to bomb summit

So, maybe both sides are wrong. Or maybe both sides are evil. What makes you think that our side is the only one being misunderstood?

We certainly don't go around hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings.

It is evident that our side is right because look what Al-Queda does. They blow up car bombs near embassies, killing not only diplomats, but civilians, they kidnap reporters and execute them on video, they ram planes into buildings.

Do we do any of that? No. Our side is only evil to THEM because we have a small contingent of troops near mecca and we provide defense to Israel

The point Danya was trying to make was that we fail to understand them just as they fail to understand us.



Al Qaeda is wrong. But its flawed logic to assert that automatically makes our side right. Both sides can be wrong in a conflict.



I think its a little more extensive than that.

Of course, if you minimize or deny that they have any reasons to be upset, concerned, or angry with what we've done in their region of the world, then we can dismiss their position and conclude they are hopelessly irrational. Its far more convenient to treat your enemies that way rather than investing the time and trouble in trying to understand them.

Like in the way of culture? That makes sense. But they see our Hollywood as showing violent and sexual contented movies, so they automatically stereotype and think that is what America is all about: Sex and violence

Similarly, goamerica, they are not all about "hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings." While I'm sure you didn't stop at the first line of Azure-Citizen's post, I would like to make sure the rest of the post wasn't lost on you:


"Both sides can be wrong in a conflict."

Just because al-Qaeda is wrong and destructive doesn't automatically mean that we are some pristine alternative, innocent of any wrong doing in either the past or present. Not all terror or animosity is directed at us because of sex, violence or religion. If we want to make any significant impact in the so-called "War on Terror" we would benefit the best by making an honest attempt to understand the roots of terrorism, and make efforts to curb those questionable actions of our forces abroad (be they military or economic).

I disagree. The history of warfare is replete with examples of respecting yet waring adversaries. Dehumanizing your opponent sounds more like genocidal warfare to me ( I believe this is something we are NOT guilty of).
I would argue that it is virtually impossible for a typical American to actually 'understand' Al Queda. It is a cult. I think the important thing is that we maintain (currently we might have to change that to obtain) the moral high ground, and get out of the Middle East as soon as possible.

Has anyone here heard Al Qaeda give ANY reason for what they are doing?

Some will try to tell us it's our foriegn policy, that we should leave certain countries or stop supporting Israel. Others will say it's because we don't give enough financially.

I think if you really want to know what Osama bin Laden and his followers want - what the reason for the 9/11 attacks and those that have followed are all about, you need do nothing but look at Osama's own words.



These attacks are about changing the American way of life. It IS about scaring people into accepting Islam as a religion.

I have to disagree with you. There are different ploys for dehumanizing an enemy and we are guilty of it. It's just more subtle because we focus all of our energy on the leaders instead of the actual people. Like Libya and North Korea and a classic example is Iraq.

The problem is that when we take hostile action against these nations we end up killing more than just the leader...that part is conveniently overlooked. It causes confusion when you focus hatred on the leader and then go to war saying you're doing it to as a favor to the people...especially when the people don't want your favors and view you as an enemy. Pretty soon everyone is put on the same level of the leader we were demonizing. It all equals out to the same thing, IMO.

I'd say the War to CONTROL Terrorism is being won. Worldwide terrorism, on the other hand, is at an all time high. Thanks to US bombs and their much more efficient and deadlier use of high tech terrorist weapons.

So this is a religious war? Trying to make this the Crusades part II? Well, instead of swords, the Christian side has machine guns and F-14 TomCat's

goamerica - PLEASE be constructive. It is nearly impossible to debate one-liners.

There is no way to make war stop. It is so very deep rooted in our civilizations indeed.

It thrives on hate, envy, pride, fear and greed of each single one of us. Once you expell these five plagues out of the human mind, then maybe I'll reconsider what I just said.

For now... I agree that terrorism can be fought or at the very least 'contained'. Organizations like Al'Qaeda can be destroyed eventually.

However, terrorism won't be eradicated from our culture. It has become one of the many faces of war, like guerilla for instance.

Those who'd have us 'understand the terrorists' are right on, if the reason is to make it easier to take them out. Reading between the lines though, I don't think that's what they want. They would rather blame America for the murderous attitudes of Islamic fundamentalists who are bent on forcibly exporting their 'religion' on the rest of the world, and killing anyone who stands in their way.

It is far too early to judge the success or failure of the WOT. But one thing is abundantly clear. Had we not gone on the offensive we would have lost far more than we've suffered so far. It would have taken a nuclear bomb to get the attention of some people. And even then I'm not so sure they'd have supported military response. Thankfully, none of them hold positions of power.