There have always been terrorists. The day will never come when some people don't resort to terrorism as a means of promoting their beliefs. Shouldn't the war be called the war against Muslim extremists? We are not targeting the IRA or the Tamils of Sri Lanka or the Basque separatists. We are very selective in which terrorists we go after. How will we ever know if we have won?
2006-09-13 08:37:06 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How do we tell what the consensus amongst Muslims world wide is concerning western actions? How much further entrenched is extremism amongst them? Are we pushing extremism towards a broader base? The generations to come will find out..not us.
2006-09-14 14:11:19 · answer #1 · answered by LaBrat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good God man, you are talking about profiling. You know you can't do that in this country. We must search those 80 year women while ignoring a 25 year old Arab at the airport just to prove that we are fair (and too gutless to take on the ACLU and the rest). As far as the IRA, Tamils or the Basques, last time I checked they have not bothered us. We can not be, nor should we be, responsible for regional conflicts.
2006-09-13 11:04:58 · answer #2 · answered by Dave B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The "War on Terror" is named as such because the American sought allies in their quest to fight muslim extremists.
They now endorse various governments' efforts to quell regional rebellions, as a part of "The War on Terror". The Chechen Resistance, for example, is now bunched up with Al Qaida, and thus it gives Russia a free hand in their morally questionable oppression of Chechnya.
While victory over the active elements in radical islam might be achievable, it should be remembered that "The War on Terror" is a political concept, which isn't just about Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden.
2006-09-13 08:48:43 · answer #3 · answered by dane 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think message to terrorist is more appropriate.
We may not see any good from the fight against terrorism but our future generations will thank us.
If we were to look for diplomatic solutions to 9/11 we might as well hit our heads on a brick wall,terrorist do not understand diplomacy,they only understand a show of force.Like it or not we are doing what is necessary to insure the safety of our future generations.
Russia was handled with diplomacy for decades,but terrorist do not have as much to loose.
You can't have peace talks with terrorist,and if you stand by and do nothing,it will only encourage them.They will feel they have won, and anytime they have a disagreement with us,they will be on our doorstep again.
We must show them that terror is not the answer to their problems when it comes to the USA...It only creates a bigger problem for them.
No one has ever confronted terror with the amount of force that we have,maybe it will be the knock in the head that they need.
2006-09-13 10:20:35 · answer #4 · answered by Dave 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we are still in engaged in the war on terror but i wouldnt say winning or losing yet. you declare victory until any known violent "anti american" groups whether muslims or not are destroyed...
we dont go after the tamil tigers or ira because thy have not attacked americans and our government. if they did, then we would be in their countries next. by the way the tamil tigers and i think the ira are on the US list of terrorist groups.
2006-09-13 08:43:03 · answer #5 · answered by john s 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct. There have always been terrorists. And there will always be terrorists as long as hatred and violence exist on the planet.
The "war on terror" is a marketing phrase, and like any good slogan its value lies not in its meaning but in its ability to sell things to people.
2006-09-13 08:40:22 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We will never win. Terrorism is as old as the hills. Unfortunately.
But we still must fight it with everything we've got because they are the bad guys. What is that quote?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
That's from memory - if I find it I'll edit.
2006-09-14 13:52:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anne Teak 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the following general scenarios must occur to end the war: Iran actually ends it exportation of arms and ideology of Jihad to the world and hands over Osama and stops its pursuit of nuclear arms, and Syria follows suit, and ALL 'Muslim' factions in and outside of Israel recognize Israel's right to exist; we invade Iran and crush it to dust, leaving no industrial capability in it, that will effectively shut Syria down but we could just go ahead and do them for grins; the US must turn its back on Israel and allow the Muslim world to annihilate it.
Which scenario makes the most sense? Could you live with the genocide of an entire peaceful people on your hands? Also, do you think that if the Muslims (the 'bad' Muslims, not the good ones...) manage to wipe out all Jews everywhere that they will be satisfied and live at peace with the rest of the world?
2006-09-13 09:48:19 · answer #8 · answered by rumplesnitz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The only lie-beral talk radio show, Air America, has filed for bankruptcy. Those terrorists are no more.
The IRA is at peace with the UK.
2006-09-13 08:42:31 · answer #9 · answered by ?Bob?NYC? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, as long as false beliefs are promoted, there will always be terrorism. The only way to eliminate terrorism is to eliminate the false beliefs... are you following me? BTW I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION EITHER... though some would say I am.
2006-09-13 08:40:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋