How Many People Have Come To The Conclusion That Terrorism Just Cannot Be Defeated ?

Question

At least within our lifetimes ?
Considering Al Queda's numbers alone , we're in big trouble no matter how you look at it . Considering Radical Islamist's numbers of members , and the percentages of 'sympathisizers'(roughly estimated to be between 20 and 40% of all Muslims) , we may be in a battle that has no end** . And folks , please be smart enough to know that even if we weren't in Iraq , they clearly would be advancing anyways there and elsewhere . Folks , they are active in 80 countries . And they would've likely been active in even more if we weren't forcing them to defend their positions in Iraq . Aside from Iraq , what about the other 79 countries ? We can't fight in 80 countries , not alone anyway . We'd need the whole world or the vast majority of it to join us . And for various reasons , that's never gonna happen . Then add Hezbollah and Hamas , coupled with their state-sponsors Iran and Syria , we are certainly in danger .
** - This is likely the Endtimes .

This question was intended to bring about discussion and debate . If you agree with it's premise , then I alos expect to see supporting facts . If you disagree with it's premise , then I expect to see supporting facts showing otherwise .
I've debated and discussed this very issue with many intelligent people and not one of them nor anyone else has ever offered a real solution for this problem . Sure , some ideas would work over decades , but I don't think we have that much time before they are successful enough to destroy us and many others . So , what shall we do.. . .. . . what shall we do ?

If any of you are curious as to my position , . . . I believe we have to fight no matter what .

Answer 1

I can tell you who has NOT: the Kamikaze. Haven't heard a peep from them since 1945.

PS My comment was a shorthand, perhaps flippant way of illustrating that suicidal fanatics CAN be defeated. Even those who HOPE their children become suicide bombers have a way of responding to the threat of anhilation. How many terrorist leaders have strapped bombs to themselves lately?

General Sherman, whose march through Georgia rivals the German and Allied bombings of cities in WWII for its barbarity, once said that wars are won not by winning hearts and minds but by so demoralizing the enemy that even their grandchildren are afraid to pick up arms. Once people are convinced that no amount of fighting and dying will achieve their goals, they tend to lose heart for the battle. Even suicidal fanatics.

By mentioning Japan, I'm not saying automatically to resort to nukes. But I'm saying that we have sworn enemies who are willing to die to destroy us and everything we hold dear. They keep telling us so, and proving it by their actions. When we recognize that, what other option is there but to confront and decicsively defeat them?

It may well be the end times. But I will not dishonor all who came before me by giving up what they worked and died to give me without a fight. Best regards.

PPS Yes, the "war on terrorism" is horribly misnamed. Political correctness is still a problem. But that does not mean that the war on a violent, extremist ideology (as espoused by al-Qaeda, etc.) and its adherents cannot, or should not, be fought.

Answer 2

I do not believe that you are going to defeat terrorists on the battlefield. I would like to believe otherwise, but I just cannot see this as being a reality. The United States is a relative new comer in relation to Islamic terrorism. These religious wars have been raging largely undeterred since the dawn of time and yet western people constantly keep adopting the Utopian idea that we are going to find a way to end it. We are not going to end it. There were terrorists before we were born and there will still be terrorists after we die. The reality is that the only way to truly stop Islamic terrorism would be to eradicate Muslims entirely. To people of the Muslim faith please do not view this as an insult. I know that most Muslims are not terrorists and I choose to believe that the majority do not support those who are. The point of the statement is that the terrorists are well hidden among the faithful and there is just no possible way to distinguish them from otherwise honest, moral and peace loving people until they commit a terrorist act. The fact is that in general the best we can do against terrorism is respond and often times this response is going to be after the fact.

Answer 3

Defeated? I guess that depends upon your definition of defeated. Terrorism is a tactic and will always be around. I think contained and isolated are better descriptions of what might be accomplished it the Democrats don't get the opportunity to surrender first.
Islam, that peaceful religion, has been trying to stamp out Christianity as long as Islam has been around. Lots of Muslims point to the Crusades as the evil of the west where Christians attacked the poor innocent Muslims. How convenient to disregard history prior to the Crusades. The Crusades were in response to unrelenting attacks by Muslims on Christians, Churches, and Monastaries. The Christians in Ethiopia built churches and Monastaries which were hardened against Muslim attack. They built centers of religion so their people would an alternative site for pilgramages (Axum) so as to avoid the treacherous journey to the holy land.
While we are at it, the threat is NOT terrorism, it is Islam.

Answer 4

Because terrorism depends upon getting the established government to overreact & cause unrest & reduced support from the population, it is the most difficult of insurrections to counter. Couple this with a religion & an ability to control the press/media and one has a foe that is all but invincible. The goal of terrorism is to cause as many innocent deaths as possible & deflect the blame to the target government.

When one looks closely at the body count of American troops in Iraq, gleefully touted nightly by our media, and the reluctance of the American people push for a victory in Iraq, we have no chance against terrorism. More than 50% of the suicide bombers in Iraq (the primary source of death around the World) are actually Saudi nationals. The Wahabbi Sunni sect of Islam is the most intollerant form of religion ever invented & the US (being a Constitutional Democratic Republic) must allow Saudia Arabia to set up schools to spread this form of religion here.

I could go on, but unless the World wakes up soon, the grandchildren of this current generation will be wearing a burka & listening for the prayer call from the local mosque. However, those that do not wish to convert to Islam will be allowed to exist as "Dhimmi" (a near slave condition reserved for non Muslims in a country ruled by Sharia Law).

Answer 5

You make many great points. The tactic the islamic extremists use is the one at hand. They use terror because it is the only way they can combat a mobilized army and disrupt governments they deem worthy of death. What I think you and I both realize is that the battle in Iraq is just a front on what will be a long terrible clash of cultures. Since the 7th century, the Muslims primary goal as stated by the Koran, was one of global domination and the implementation of Islamic law. This growing conflict as I see it, will escalate when the Islamic extremists get their hands on nukes or a least a dirty bomb and use it against Israel. The resulting retaliation by Israel will inflame the region and the world for that matter in what promises to be a bloodbath of Biblical proportions. Indeed, a reckoning is coming and the victor may inherit the wind.

Answer 6

There always have been and will always be terrorists. Sometimes they are defeated and sometimes they defeat others. Read history and particularly the last few hundred years of the Roman Empire. Vandals, Goths and others ravaged Europe and Western Asia. What about pirates at sea? Are they not terrorists? Although Black Beard is long gone piracy is not. Barbarossa was a pirate working for the Sultan of Turkey against European trading in the Mediterranean. To the Europeans he was a terrorist but to the Turks he was a hero. There are many incidents. How about Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, Vlad the Impaler, or Ivan the Terrible? Were these not terrorists? They eventually had their run but they died out and were replaced by another group of terrorists with different targets.

Answer 7

That's no reason to quit though.
They are not going to quit.
Happily Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey seem to be getting to work there in their own countries.
Even the more moderate Palestinians are fighting back with the radicals. I find this trend very encouraging and hope to see much more of it in the future.
If it's really the end times there is nothing we can do about that. I think we should continue to attend to things we can attend to.

Answer 8

I disagree with you on the "forcing them to defend their position in Iraq" simply because they would have no position in Iraq if not for our actions. But that's neither here nor there nor is it really the point of the question. Does some force need to be used? Yes, of course. Our actions in Afghanistan were sanctioned and justified and effective. Anytime a KNOWN cell surfaces it should be neutralized. But that doesn't end terrorism... it just slows it down. In the end, the only way to end terrorism is with education. That may be more of a task than we are prepared to take on at this time.. but in the end it is what has o happen.

Answer 9

Terrorism...that is Radical Islamic Terrorism...can be defeated....but unfortunately that would require the immediate suspension of the words 'Political Correctness'.

We took care of the terroristic ways the Japanese fought WWII...didn't we?

Political correctness is the reason people are left looking at a situation as hopeless. The solutions are always there....but the spineless wouldn't want somebody to get hurt.

Enough with the spineless intellect...now let's wipe out those terrorists...

Answer 10

I have hostages and I'm not affraid to kill them. Imediatlely stop posting, or you will be next.... Yes, terrorism is not only widespread it is effective. In a way it is a form of manipulation to make the people who fail to cooperate partially responsible. Also people will ing to die for something are almost impossible to stop... what are you going to threaten them with that's worse than killing them... really? However, the most effective weapon of the terrorists is not dirty bombs or anthrax or airplanes. It is merely terror. If we choose not to be afraid of them they have lost there advantage. We have the technology and the intelligence to stay one step ahead of them if we are willing to use it... I think that it is possible to finally defeat terrorism, the terrorists cannot be defeated, but many of their demands are reasonable some even just. If the United States would begin to recognize the desperate plight of most of the Islamic world and help to aleviate poverty, etc. The terrorists would no longer have an excuse to hate us and would be unable to wage jihad. The first victim of the terrorists is their own people, the second is the outside world. If we pre-empt by aiding the first victim, we will not have to worry about attacks on ourselves.