The War on Terrorism?

Question

Hand on your heart.... do you really think it can be won? For every terrorist you kill there are another 10 that are willing to take their place.

How do you fight a "war" with a faceless army and an army with no fixed abode?

If you think we can, then enlighten me.....

Well thanks for your insight Walter, but I already spend enough time on here, without going digging for answers.... I believe the Pregnancy section could do with your wise words of wisdom, as they seem to ask with alarming regularity what the symptons of pregnancy are, perhaps you could let them know that there is a database floating around somewhere that they can interrogate.

Answer 1

To me the 'War on terror' has always seemed like an oxymoron. Let me tell you the truth now (a beginners guide if you will.)

We all know that there are three major religions, Judaism (Zionism can also be included), Christianity and Islam. One came after the other in that order and all three have a differing, although albeit very similar prophecy on how the end of the world will occur.

Each religion has its extremists and fanatics. ALL THREE.
As it currently stands, Christianity's extreamists are represented by the USA, Judaism's extreamistsare represented by Israel and America under her wing. Islam's extreamists are represented by Al-Qaeda. As you can see al-Qaeda is the only organisation that isn't a country.

Now all three religions recon that they are going to end up on top, and will one day claim victory. All three religions also think that every person on earth will eventually follow their religion.

I think that the war on terror is only the tip of the ice berg of what is to follow, and what is to follow is a war to end all wars, never ending, the end of the world. This may not happen soon, it may not even be accelerating very quickly, but it IS happening.

So, hand on heart, I have little hope that the 'war on terror' will be won, for the reason of extreamism breeding in all three religions.

When I came to realise that this would be the end result I thaught why can we not stop this from happening? The answer is that the extreamists have all the power. All the major players have an arsenal to whipe any country off the face of the earth.

I believe that there is a God. I believe his name to be Allah. I believe that killing any person is wrong. I believe that making war to further your own selfish aim is wrong. I believe that the Jerusalem problem is KEY so stopping this armageddon. I believe that every nation should be secular and not have exteamist leaders in power. I believe that there is to be a struggle for humanity. I believe that we can make a difference. I believe that peace is possible.

Answer 2

Sorry Mate you never will win!

They change from Terrorists to Freedom Fighters then to Partisans.
Further down the line they form a Political Party and get elected.
They are a bit like cheap wars really where the aggressor never looses.
The trouble with the current bunch is that they are the modern Conquistadors. I can't use the real phrase.
I think it is a race between Global Warming and what will be needed to stop them.
I think it is called Them or Us.
But that is wrong, it will be Them and Us.
I wouldn't mind if there were half a dozen Gods, but there is only one to my mind and I'm not stopping believing in him.

Switch the lights out.

Answer 3

What we need to face up to is that no-one becomes a "terrorist" for fun. These people have a genuine sense of grievance, with no outlet for any democratic resolution. Don't forget that world hero, Nelson Mandela, was once branded a terrorist whilst he languished on Robbins Island. The way to resolve this current situation is to understand the other side's perception, and then to take action to remedy the grievance. However someone like Dubya will never do that - he thinks it's far better to send in the planes and troops, and secure the oil.

Answer 4

that's a conflict against a virulent, bastardized form of Islam. the challenge is that many Muslims are afraid to speak out against it for many motives. in spite of the undeniable fact that, that's crucial that average Muslims talk out and safeguard their faith from those evil zealots that have twisted it right into a form of fascism. till that occurs, many harmless human beings of all faiths will loose priceless lives and treasure. it is an historic turning element in Islam. Will that is a faith of life or a faith of loss of life via fact the terrorists declare? The President describe the Axis of Evil as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. there has been no exchange to the coverage of coping with all 4. Afghanistan and Iraq are being dealt with. Iran will probable be dealt with next even nevertheless what kind that is going to take isn't sparkling. North Korea has been constrained by ability of the chinese language yet remains a risk as long as Kim Jung Il is in cost. .

Answer 5

No it is not possible to defeat terrorists. In definition, a criminal is included in the terrorist category. They spread terror. The War on Terrorism will always go on. It is impossible to stop people scattered around the world that are so shrouded in society. There will always be lunatics that will continue the spread of terror. The only way to win the War on Terrorism to turn the world into Orwell's 1984. Cameras hidden everywhere, including your own home.

Answer 6

Civilian deaths caused by United States and Coalition military action have been criticized. Estimates of civilian deaths vary greatly. Within Iraq, these estimates are between 4,000 to 98,000. The United States Department of Defense does not record the deaths of non-Coalition persons, a so-called "body count." Estimates prominently cited have come from IraqBodyCount, a database of deaths reported on the mass media; the Iraqi Ministry of Health; and the independent United States report "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq" in The Lancet. In any estimate, non-Coalition civilian deaths exceed those of the United States in the attacks of 11 September 2001 from which the "war on terrorism" began.

U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "War on Terrorism" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". Critics argue that such goals create a state of perpetual war, and that "terrorist groups" could continue to arise indefinitely.

Since "terrorism" is a tactic rather than a country or entity, some have criticized the name "War on Terrorism", by arguing you cannot have a war against a tactic — you can only have a war with a country or an entity (such as against Germany in World War Two, or against a state within a state like Al Qaeda after 9/11). In addition, since "terrorism" is difficult to define (for example, the United Nations still has not reached consensus on a definition of "terrorism") a "War Against Terrorism" has no uncontroversial meaning. Further, this criticism that the title is a misnomer is linked to the argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Others have criticised the War on Terrorism as counterproductive. British Liberal Democrat politician Shirley Williams writes that the American and United Kingdom governments "must stop to think whether it is sowing the kind of resentment which is the seedbed of future terrorism."The United Kingdom ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, said that U.S. President Bush is "the best recruiting sergeant ever for al Qaeda." Brigitte L. Nacos has published research indicating a correlation between increases in terrorism alert levels and increases in Bush's poll ratings. Referring to her study of terrorism alerts, media coverage and Bush's popularity, journalist Matthew Stannard wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that "The media will repeat the president's remarks. Public fear of terrorism will increase. And the president's poll numbers will rise."

Answer 7

Sending Soldiers, of any country, against guerrilla forces does not work! You have to fight and think like them!
But when we do, we get critiscised for it! This is a no win situation
Conventional methods will not defeat the terrorist! Fact!

Why do you think us British negotiated with the I.R.A- Much to my disgust- If we hadn't they would have gone on Ad Infinitum!
Get real, please!
Whatever Bush and his cronies say, terrorists are here to stay.
Better get used to it and hope that our Security Services can keep them in check!

Answer 8

You can to a degree. can you make it totally go away? NO. Can you make it less likely, Yes.

If you take away a enemies finances, command and control and you understand its weaknesses you go a long ways in defeating it.

We went to war with germany and millions died.
Did we win? Nazism still exists doesn't it? Even here in the u.S.

I do agree with your basic tenet that it is a very difficult task at hand. But I would rather do something than just set back and wait for them.....

Answer 9

It' like training a dog not to pee on the floor.
First you have to get it's attention ( whack !! ) and tell it "bad dog " , then you have to do it again and again until it learns acceptable behavior .
Keep whacking until they decide it's easier to join the world , than fight it .
A defeatest attitude gets you defeated everytime , some people are defeated already .
We are teaching the terrorists a defeatist attitude with everyone we kill ,wound , capture .

Answer 10

It's a different war than fighting armies. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to send out tanks and planes to take out individual combatants or small cells.
Over time the west will develop better methods to fight this war. Eventually it will be won.
The key to winning is collaboration of governments.