I think most people agree we should fight terrorism ( I hope ) but I think we differ on how, just wanted to see which option you would choose?
" Everything " = all available troops and all available funds
2006-09-25 09:30:03 · 9 answers · asked by The Angry Stick Man 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Small Covert Forces with very good intelligence and the ability to move about in a country without creating suspicion from the populace.
2006-09-25 09:34:44 · answer #1 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting I put a question with somewhat similar import on 'current events' and 'government'. I was concerned about attacks on violent extremists being seen as an attack on Islam and how this could be avoided. Maybe it can't but the situation if 1.6 billion (have I got the figure right?) Muslims unite in hostility to the west would be dire and we might be in an 'escalation is the name of the game situation' with truly monumentally bloody consequences.
I really think this is a situation where one has to carefully consider each option and bear in mind the consequences on the hearts and minds of ordinary people. Intelligence yes. Double standards with regard hit squads operating outside the law, perhaps only when there is gross provocation. Protect vital strategic interests yes, but do not over react or act in a disproportionate way militarily. Be prepared for a long confrontation, perhaps with crises and alternatively more stable periods. If we claim we are superior in our values we have to demonstrate this to win the battle for hearts and minds right across the world.
2006-09-25 17:03:57 · answer #2 · answered by Robert A 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
send everyone back to there own country and start again with very tight boarder control and only let in the people who have a good reason to be here use covert ops with a very big fist backing them up scrap human rights and death penalty to any one who is involved in any way of acts of terrorism fund raising preaching etc
2006-09-25 17:18:37 · answer #3 · answered by johnny boy rebel 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Small forces for the terror cells and everything for the nations who harbor or give aid to the terror cells. A 2 pronged approach.
2006-09-25 16:34:26 · answer #4 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You fight terrorism by putting a tight lid on immigration and borders. You use profiling at the airport. Monitor Muslim gatherings and communities. Recruit Muslim moderates for undercover work. I do not want to hear about civil rights when our citizens are at risk. You also support the military and the President. You don't use retoric that is repeated by terrorists on their videos.
2006-09-25 16:35:27 · answer #5 · answered by curious K 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you come down to the definition of terrorist as against freedom fighter. when you are already occupying thier lands, you have to expect resistance. calling it terrorism won't help defeat it.
the US lost in Vietnam because it occupied a country and didn't win the hearts and minds of the people. it will happen in every country in the middle east that you occupy. in the 21st century, this sort of war will not be successful
2006-09-25 16:37:24 · answer #6 · answered by Boring 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can not fight an idea.
But, intelligence ops and covert ops would be my answer.
2006-09-25 16:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by Special Ed 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
small covert forces is must. able to blend in and do the dirty work.
2006-09-25 16:41:58 · answer #8 · answered by Rusty Shackleford 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i would use the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. to find out where the people are hiding, then attack from the air so not to many troops will be at risk.
2006-09-25 16:38:59 · answer #9 · answered by dcarcia@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋