A Serious Question For Anti-War Libs?

Question

How do you propose we fight lslamic fascism?

Al Qaeda's top deputy just said Iraq is the main battle ground.

Answer 1

Libs think, if we are nice, they will be nice. Sorry to tell you libs, but that is not the way it is. There are people in this world who want all Americans dead, women, men and children.

Answer 2

First there is no such thing as Islamic Fascism. That's a word made up by the righties to illicit an emotional response to what is a criminal offense....a tactic....terrorism.

You cannot fight a tactic. You cannot win a war against a tactic.

What can you do against a tactic?

1) Don't do things to piss off those that you want to keep in our good graces (like invading a sovereign country under false premises). That feeds into their view that the US is an imperial power that wants to subdue them.

2) Go directly after those that commit terrorism (al Qaeda and afiliated groups). Don't pussyfoot around with the extraneous countries. Target directly that group.

3) Add protection to our borders, airports, chemical plants, nuclear plants, infrastructure, etc. (none of which is being done, because all of the money is being spent on stupid wars on foreign soil.)

Answer 3

The fact is, ending the threat of jihadist terrorist attacks against the
US would be easy enough. You just need to do what Ron Paul has done, and
pay attention to the actual motivations of the jihadist terrorists.
Every serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US is
motivated by actions that the US government has undertaken in their part
of the world -- harmful interventions against Muslim populations. These
include backing Israeli attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the
civilian infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators in countries
like Saudi Arabia, etc.

In order to eventually halt the jihadist terrorists from making these
attacks, the US should stop committing these harmful interventions and
thus remove the motivation for the jihadist terrorists (whose attacks on
civilians they by no means justify) in the first place. Ending these
harmful interventions would in any case be the right thing to do from a
moral standpoint.

This should of course be combined with a strong law-enforcement effort
to go after the jihadist terrorists who undertake such attacks.

Instead, though, the Bush administration has chosen to deny reality,
misrepresent the terrorists' motivations, and to engage in even more of
these harmful interventions (the invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ethiopia's
proxy invasion of Somalia, etc.). This simply makes the problem worse,
motivating more and more Muslims to join the jihadists, and landing the
US in the Iraqi quagmire -- much to the delight of al-Qaida.

A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take some time to
eliminate the motivations of the jihadists -- that kind of hatred and
fanaticism does not end in a day.

Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good groups in the region, such as:

http://www.rawa.org/
http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
http://www.awalls.org/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 4

At this stage of the war it would take a tactical genious in order to get us through it. I'm sure most of us "libs" would agree that our main problem comes from the fact that the administration and the military have been making up strategy as they go along, rather then taking the proper precautions and preparations before getting our country in to this mess. They come up with this "surge" which is simply a repeat of what has been previously done multiple times. They make up intelligence as they go. It's all a big farce.

Answer 5

I may not qualify as an anti-war lib. I supported the invasion of Afganastan, b/c it was hiding people who attacked us. But then again about 99% of the liberals supported that war.

As for Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I would not have attacked.

Keep in mind before we invaded Iraq, we had world support in fighting terrorism.

I really don't know where we go from here. After 9/11 and when we invaded Afganastan it was the entire world against a very small number of Islamic fantics.

However, because of our unjustifiable invasion of Iraq and our polorization, calling it a Crusade, the moderate muslims now side with the fantics and the fantics numbers are growing everyday.

Bush should have followed the model of his father. Who built the largest coalition in world history, instead of taking a cowboy, you are with us or against us attitude.

Bush, Sr. was able to build a coalition because he allowed for a group consensus instead of a take it or leave it approach.

The squandering of the worldwide good will that exist after 9/11 to the vilification in less than 2 years will go down in history as the greatest diplomatic disaster in world history.

Answer 6

the solution is:

we make good relations with islamic nations ,of course i mean the people of these countries ,not regimes

improving the policy towars the middle east and give a justice to palestinians ,those 2 points will make there is no more extrmesits who can join ALQAEDA
but if USA insists in bad policy in the world ,the young people who join Alqaeda will not stop and if we kill 10 ,100 will join them.

th main problems that terrorists gain their popualairt when they attch USA are palestine (USA support israel strongly without justice ,and allow israel to make palestine as a small prison)the second and third causes are iraq and afghanistan ,usa must withdraw from iraq after making a strong agreement between Sunni and Shi ites,the deal can be supported by the biggest sunni countries ,saudi arabia and Egypt and the big shi ite country iran but the agreement must be fair for all sides including kurdish and others

Answer 7

Not with American fascism. Remove the futile recruiting grounds by supporting liberal educations and governments in the region. not the Saudi madrases system of wahabists. spend some of the money we waste on bombing them and use it to help support education, and health care. stop overthrowing or embargoing every time our panties get in a bunch. Take away the rallying points for those who fear/hate us. then we can isolate and remove the hard core radicals rather then just make more martyrs and hero's and another generation of war. I would call that fighting to win not fighting to prolong the war Also differentiate between corporate interests and American interests when making policy.

Answer 8

A mixture of diplomacy with the rest of the world and increasing intelligence in the region so as to be able to fight a covert war rather than an open conflict. Essentially you can't pick these people out of a crowd by just invading a country, what you need to do is infiltrate their organisations, gain allies from surrounding nations and the rest of the world so that you have increased intelligence resources and then pick them off selectively - this prevents clumsy destruction of civilian lives and property and prevents a massive source of new recruits to the terrorists.

Any supporters of terrorists you hit with economic warfare, with the support of your allies, and make it too costly for any nation to harbor them.

What you don't do is declare global, open warfare and attack nations that have nothing to do with the people you're going after. You go only after those who attack you and you do it harshly and you force their supporters to give them no aid by making it too costly for them to do so.

*addition* Should America really take advice from Al Qaeda, if they are your enemies why would you trust them? In fact given the massive expenditure of resources and increasingly negative global response to Iraq, perhaps they just want to keep you there to bankrupt and isolate America from it's allies?

Answer 9

Well, certainly not by invading a country that didn't have any Islamic fascists.

Wrong target!

How do we fight it? By being vigilant, tightening our borders, tightening our visa process, doing background checks on those who apply for visas.

It is the only way. "Terrorism" doesn't have a country, a headquarters, a base. It doesn't have Generals, weapons, armies, naval forces. Terrorism is a worldwide effort by a handful of disaffected whackos. Bombs, invasions, wars and such are useless against them. They live in the communities, hide behind women and children. They don't wear uniforms.

Bombing the bejesus out of a country like Iraq or anywhere else is useless against them.

Answer 10

Diplomacy. We find a way to come to an understanding.

By the way, the fact that the US has invaded a country with no proven ties to 9-11 only makes more people want to fight us. Even the gov has admitted that more people have come on board to attack us because we attacked Iraq. And we have not one once of proof that it was the right thing to do. iraq had nothing to do with it and we just went in anyway because they have the black gold. How do you think that makes people over there feel? i'm minding my own business and you invade. I would fight us too. Sadam was a bad guy, but they see us a s just as bad. They know it's about the oil.

Answer 11

Either win or get out.

Pull back troops to afghanistan create a U.S. base

Provide air support only in Iraq.

Use overwhelming force/bombs that will send a message you don't want to screw with the United States.

We don't need men and women on the ground being target practice.

I'm sorry to say this but
as a liberal maybe a threat of a nuclear bomb or actual use will let them know we aren't going to take it anymore.

( of course Bush needs to know how to pronounce nuclear before using it )