Is a " War " on Terrorism the only way to fight Terrorism?

Question

I hear people griping about it but what are our other options? Also do YOU blame Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton for not addressing it sooner? ( assuming after the Iran hostage situation they knew about radical Islamic groups against the USA ) Did they know a war was the only solution and they didn't want to do it? If War is the only option against Terrorism why did it take us so long to begin the process, were other Presidents afraid to?

Answer 1

its the most illogical way

I guess thats why we do it

Answer 2

Alas, it is not just "terrorism" that the world must fight. The IRA were terrorists, and were annoying but hardly an international problem. Happy to let the police go after IRA-like terrorists. The problem here is fascism, of a unique Islamic variety, whose constantly-stated goal is to take over the world (even the Brain from Pinky and the Brain talks less about world rule).

Islamo-fascism is not just something done by non-state actors; if it were, then no war would be needed. States have been involved for decades, in particular Iran, and also Afghanistan's Taliban, and to a lesser extent Syria, Libya, and other Arab states. You cannot, for example, bring the criminal justice system to bear on the Taliban or the Iranian Mullahs. War, or some careful overthrow, is the only way---each outside the boundaries of law enforcement.

I don't think it was always as obvious that the Islamo-fascist threat was so real. And, at any rate, it was small compared to the Communist threat, and so the latter trumped.

Answer 3

The very word "terrorist" tells us we'd probably not want to invite them to coffee and a friendly chat to solve our problems. Their aim is to kill all Americans and our way of life. The former presidents did not respond to acts of terrorism as the ACTS OF WAR that they were. Perhaps they didn't realize at that point that terrorism would ever have the devastating effects it had when our mainland was struck on 9/11. Perhaps they were hesitant to declare war, knowing how unpopular wartime presidents are and what horrendous responsibilities a wartime president must face. It's never politically popular no matter which party is in power. I personally feel it should have been addressed aggressively when it first began; then we might not have the world-wide cells of terrorists that we now have. I think the only way to effectively deal with terrorism is to diligently hunt, find and kill as many terrorists as possible as quickly as possible, wherever we find them. If that means tapping phones, tapping into internet sites, having full port searches, conducting airport security searches even if it means profiling, and asking me to give up some of my freedoms for a time, I would be perfectly glad to do so. I'd rather have less freedom, no terrorists completing their missions, and be alive to enjoy freedom from fear than what I have now.

Answer 4

They hate the ideology of the west and will have nothing to do with Israel. This battle has been going on for a long time and no matter what course of action we take, they will still hate us. Its like a street gang! If your poor, uneducated and have no job or a way to feed your family your going to look for something. These extremists that teach hate look for people like this! They make them feel like something and that they have something to fight for. They teach them the extreme side of their religion and it builds hate and anger. I do not condone what they do but I understand why they do it. This is going to be a problem that will exist long after you and I are gone. No matter what president is in office he/she will never do a good enough job and he/she will be slandered and battered just as Bush has been. At least Bush did something and didn't wait for the next president to take the initiative.

Answer 5

The war on terrorism is a misnomer. As for the blame I think you can blame George Bush Jr. He was in office 9 months before 9/11 and he was briefed every day, I would assume that it came up in the conversation more then once and he did nothing to avert it. Did Clinton mess up, yes, did Bush Sr mess up, yes, did Reagan mess up, you bet. He was the one that trained Osama and give him arms to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. But Jr. was the one that let 9/11 happen. As for another way to fight it, yes, we could have our troops home to secure our borders and that would go a long way toward fighting terrorism in this country.

Answer 6

That is a good ?? I don't think we have any other options. These Islamic Jihadist want us to conform to their religion or die. These terrorist are 3rd world. You cannot negotiate with them. Its their way or die. Plain and simple! They have already taken over so many other countries. You cannot appease these people, for OUR way of life we have to fight. VICTORY before PEACE.
Sorry that's the way it is and Thank GOD we have a President and an Administration who knows this!
Think about this: The Islamic President of Iran publicly on TV said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and kill Americans and Infidels., What don't people understand about that?

Answer 7

The Bin Laden family and the Bush family are friends. The Bin Ladens are a part of the Saudi Royal Family. They planned it because the Republicans are primarily funded by the Military Industrial Process (weapons builders) and they needed an enemy to go after. No enemy, no bombs exploding, no profits. So they got together with the Saudi's and created a "neverending war on terror". The Republicans are making $$$, The Military Industrial Process is making $$$ and the Saudi's are making $$$.

Follow the $$$, it answers all questions.

Answer 8

War (military combat) is not the only option. However, it is one that can be used while others are tried.

Among those being tried are:

Going after their financial sources. Thanks to the NY Times it will be more difficult.

Covert operations (both wet and dry methods). Again thanks to the NYT this will be more difficult.

Diplomacy.

Aggressive interrogation techniques.

Increased security at borders and points of entry into the US.

Civilian co-operation.

International sanctions (if carried out and not subverted by other countries).

Answer 9

No. Individual terrorists and terrorist groups can be fought quite effectively without declaring a global crusade against the concept of terrorism.

Criminals can be prosecuted without needing to label them terrorists. Organizations that fund and support crimes and atrocities can be tracked, monitored, and broken up without labeling them.

We can go after individual countries, and enemy bases, and training camps, without it being part of some grand campaign.

Declaring a "war on terror" is a marketing phrase. But every one of the effective and useful law enforcement and military options are still available whether we label them under that banner or not.

Answer 10

Obama's warfare on women folk is extremely his warfare on the non secular freedoms of the churches that do not promote using birth control. for sure the biggest non secular crew to oppose it is the Catholic Church, they have a lengthy status heritage of practise adverse to using birth control and abortion. at the same time as Obama tried to require the Catholic Church furnish wellbeing coverage that may furnish those facilities he became trampling on their first modification rights to freely practice their faith. no longer in basic terms stomp on that freedom bit to pressure them to regulate their teachings. Obama then tried to require acceptance by technique of putting ahead that those that worked for Catholic depending businesses ought to pay for the further coverage out of their own pocket. the problem with that's that the Church also teaches culpability of sin. in case you enable a sin to be dedicated you're in basic terms as to blame of that sin because the man who dedicated it. many non secular human beings from assorted faiths stood by technique of the Catholic Church and at the same time as Obama spoke of that he replaced his wordings and proclaimed that Republicans were waging a "warfare on women folk" there are a decision of Catholic women folk that use birth control, perchance even extra that the Vatican cares to study about yet even those that use those do no longer opt to work out the authorities substitute the instructions of their Church.

Answer 11

the 9-11 attacks should have been prevented,,, Bush was at the helm,,, the buck stops with him,, he should have never declared a war,,,,, or invaded Iraq,,, the attacks should have been a law enforcement matter,,, the US would be a lot better off today,,, the billions Bush has spent in Iraq would have provided the US with the most effective security and the best top notch intelligence in the world,,, and yet... here we are,,,,, in a quagmire,, 5 years later,, safer but not yet safe,,,,