Can we really beat terrorism through military?

Question

After seeing so amny small wars, crusades and coalitions againt "terrorism" I wonder whether we really can win through military might. For example, our country (UK) followed Americas latest military action in Iraq. We were followed a swift end to "Weapons of mass destruction", yet we are still loosing troops in Basra, and Baghdad. If we look back to northern Ireland, or the situations in the Balkans, it should be clear that our current tactics do not work, and only lead to more hatred and more insurgents.

At the moment we shoot terrorists, and often civillians in the process. These mistakes allow radical people to brew hatred and fear within the minds of young people. It is this which causes even more terrorists to appear, attacking more of our landmarks and cities, which in turn fuels our "crusades" against terror.

This is a cycle that has run for centuries and will continue to run unless we break it. We need to break the source of the problem. Do you agree?

Answer 1

We have to start taking a look at what we are doing through imperalism that causes this hatred. That is going to be the only way to defeat terrorism against us.

Answer 2

You can’t defeat terrorism thorough pure military might. The terrorist will just run away and hide among the population, waiting to come out of the woodwork and attack again. Look at the latest airline hijacking plot. It was done 6 years after 9/11, yes the attack was planed in the UK, but the target was America. I just wish the Bush crowd had been a little smarter and let Scotland Yard build the case they needed. The Yard caught the suicide bombers and stopped the attack, but they didn’t catch the organizers or even find the head of the operation.

The only way to truly change defeat terrorism is to destroy their support in the population. That’s why Hezbollah won the recent war. Yes they expended or lost most of their munitions and launchers, but those are easily replaced. Israel claims to have destroyed the state within a state, but it is too early to decide that. Now that the war has stopped look at who the first organization to provide relief in Southern Lebanon was; Hezbollah. They didn’t do it out of the kindness of their hearts. They did it to keep the support of the people. Without that support they couldn’t continue to function.

The people supporting the terrorists need to be educated. They need to realize that the terrorists aren’t helping them because they are kind, they are helping them so they can continue to function. But, again you can’t force this on them. At the start of the war some of the Lebanonise were pointing out that Hezbollah started the war, and they made attacks that no nation could NOT respond to. If Hezbollah were a true humanitarian organization they would never have started the war. But, Hezbollah was founded in 1982 by Iran for the sole, and often stated purpose, “to drive Israel into the sea.” Iran is fighting a proxy war with the West and against Israel. They are using Hezbollah to do all their fighting for them.

In the meantime what are the attacked nations to do. If Israel did not respond to Hezbollah’s attack then their government would quickly be replaced by one that would fight back. After the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center if the Bush administration had not invaded Afghanistan, or attacked someone, then he wouldn’t have won the next election. Unfortunately, he also wanted to finish daddy’s war, which is why he invaded Iraq. So now the US and England have to fight a war in two countries, and suffer all the hatred from the people of those two countries; hatred which will only breed more terrorists.

Fighting back is the short-term solution, and as Iraq has shown us, not a very good one. It would be better if we were to use our military to rebuild Iraq, but any attempts to do that have been destroyed by the terrorists. It would be better to use the money to educate the people and inform them how the terrorists are a danger to themselves. But, the Moslem world is very sensitive about that; they don’t want the West to educate their children. It would be better if we were to leave Saudi Arabia so we would not be “occupying” the country with two of Islam’s holiest shrines. Except we are in Saudi Arabia to protect the country from the terrorists who would destroy it.

In the meantime, until a better solution is developed we fight, and we play the game of self-protection. The terrorists only have to get lucky once, and we have to wait for the people, who support them, to wise up and realize the terrorists are doing them more harm than good.

Violence can solve some problems, you only have to ask Hitler, but violence can’t solve every problem. It is often the easiest response, but it may not be the best one. The cycle of violence and hatred continues. The only way we can end this war is to “make the terrorists” go away. Killing them is the best way to seem like you are doing something about the problem, but it isn’t the solution to the problem. The ways to break the cycle are difficult; they require the help of the people involved on both sides, mostly the enemy’s side. The people have to get smarter before this can happen, which the terrorists don’t want to happen. The biggest problem of the war on terrorism is that the terrorists don’t want to quit; if we kill them, more spring up, and so the cycle continues.

Answer 3

History has proven that you can't beat terrorism through military action. George W. Bush is not a student of history though. You hit the nail on the head in the second last sentence of your statement. If we can break the source you can then defeat terrorism because no new terrorist will come into being. I don't have the answer to how to do that but then I'm not a policy maker of the US. You would think that the supposedly educated, informed policy makers could figure it out. Since the ones now in there can't figure it out it's time to make a clean sweep and get someone in there who knows how.

Answer 4

whilst this 'conflict' began it became into pronounced that 'Terror Inc.' be taken care of as the different 'mafia' like company. international police and protection centers, plus covert operations on a sort of stages would have critically limited the international that those communities ought to function in. that concept became into hooted down with the aid of the Bush Junta and it relatively is associates in the spectacular wing radio media. somewhat, a conventional conflict became into released against a third international protection rigidity and marvel, marvel...we gained! on the down component we created a brilliant and growing to be resistance that no volume of artillery, armor, airplane and 'boots on the floor' can conquer. specific, the 'surge' is working, yet it is extra of an outgrowth of the bribe money we pay particularly some communities to no longer shoot at our forces. we've with the aid of no skill created any sort of working government....the 'Vichy Iraq' government we feed and water interior citadel eco-friendly Zone has zip for capability or authority. All it relatively is a fig leaf for the yank occupation....or maybe at that it relatively is no longer working. Iraq is falling aside further and extra regular and all of the kings horse and all of the kings adult males are not going to place this Humpy-Dumpty returned jointly returned. So, this is the plan, 5 years late......get out of Iraq, take care of that fallout because it comes. Crank up the covert company of each and every us of a that has a canine in this combat and bypass after the bums that hand out the money and the hands and set up 'training bases' the place ever they are. Terrorism cuts the two procedures and don't enable those McCainiacs show you how to comprehend diverse. No kiddin!

Answer 5

What you just called (terrorism) can't be beaten through military. Your country stands beside USA and invaded Iraq. What are you expecting Iraqis to do??? to welcome US and British occupation.That's the solution " get out of the middle east and just mind your own business" and you will never hear about that terrorism.
By the way, terror attacks that happened in Britain and USA are a reaction against the American oppression. Compare the victims in terror attacks in USA and London to the barbarian killing of people in Iraq which is made by your troops. Even Iraqis victims are more than those who died in London or USA.

Answer 6

Yes, I agree. Sure, we could bomb and otherwise kill them all, the men, the women, the children and the grandmas and grandpas too. Fortunately I don't think the people of the world will stand for that. There are some who want that but they are a radical minority. Terrorism will not end until underlying differences between the West and the Middle East are resolved.

Answer 7

Your observations are quite astute! But there's something that you're not facing up to: YOU'VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED!
You were sold snake -oil and your lap dog Tony Blair went along with it!
If they were serious about terrorists they would have sent commandos to get their ring leaders. But their objectives are clearly not terrorism because Sadaam did nothing to harm us. Not even a threat! Sadaam helped in his own convoluted way, keep the balance of regional influence under control.
By living there his understanding of those issues were better than ours. We will rue the day that we put SHI-ites in control in Iraq to unite at some point with Iran - mark my words.
And the supposed REal threat (Bin Laden) is still at large. Who is kidding who? WE"VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED!!!!

Answer 8

Perhaps one of the better examples is back when the former president Bush was CIA head and he was training Afghani rebels to fight against the Russians.

One of his prized recruits was Isama bin Laden.

Oops.

I can't help but wonder how many more bin Ladens we've given birth to in our farce to get rid of this one.

A much smaller country like Iraq lost as many civilians in the first six weeks as what we lost on 9/11, its been three-and-a-half years now and counting. It's also our third time there in the last eighteen years.

With friends like us, who needs enemas?

We need special forces taking out their command posts and their commanders, using any means necessary. We need human intelligence operatives infiltrating terrorist cells. We do not need a ground war where every other Iraqi killed is a friendly, a civilian. It seems to me that we weren't especially polite and gracious when it happened to us, but I might be suffering from a liberal media delusion, too. Maybe 9/11 was the day that we started loving the people who attacked us.

When Bush's twin girls fell off their bikes and scraped their little knees, I can't help but wonder if he helped them by ripping off their little legs...

Peace and love. You don't get rid of a fly in your house by inviting in hordes of termites. But Georgie did. And is.

Answer 9

Probably not unless we stop pussyfooting around and really go after them and the countries that harbor them the way we did Germany and Japan in WW2. Our military bombed the hell out of them until they realised if they didn't surrender we would obliterate their entire countries, men, women, children, everything. THAT is what war is! And guess what it worked! Japan and Germany are no longer a threat to this country are they?

Answer 10

Something few people consider, but remember the Oklahoma City bombing? That was a terrorist attack wrought on the US by a citizen, a former Marine, even. I don't know the answer, but a 'pre-emptive strike' didn't seem like the right way. I'm actually surprised Bush's words weren't used in criminal courts, like, 'I had to pre-emptively kill this guy because he might have killed me'.