10 Dec 10
1 edit
If America does not change it's battle tactics soon, the war on terror will be lost. Rather than sending countless troops overseas in a vain attempt to find Osama Bin Laden, America should be training Arabec speaking people of Middle Eastern decent to infiltrate the hideouts of those responsible for planning and financing the 9/11 attacks, (or any other terror threat). A combination of infiltration, and small surgical military strikes, is the best way to weaken the terror threat. America is trying to fight a 21st century war on terror with battle tactics from the 1940's. It's much too expensive, and It just won't work.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIt also sound vaguely fantastical in the Tolkien vein. Could sillier designations than "The War on Terror" be imagined? How about "The War Against Evil," or "The War Against the Inimical Minions of Darkness," or "The Campaign to Eradicate Unpleasantness of Any Kind." My choice, if only because of the acronym: the "Crusade to Utterly Negate Terrorists."
The war on terror is unwinnable.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by bill718
If America does not change it's battle tactics soon, the war on terror will be lost. Rather than sending countless troops overseas in a vain attempt to find Osama Bin Laden, America should be training Arabec speaking people of Middle Eastern decent to infiltrate the hideouts of those responsible for planning and financing the 9/11 attacks, (or any other ter ...[text shortened]... terror with battle tactics from the 1940's. It's much too expensive, and It just won't work.
America should be training Arabec speaking people of Middle Eastern decent to infiltrate the hideouts of those responsible for planning and financing the 9/11 attacks-bill718
How do you think they are pulling off the drone attacks ? Thats all through intelligence. In other words, through Arabec speaking people of Middle Eastern decent infiltrating the hideouts of those responsible for planning and financing the 9/11 attacks.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by SoothfastThat is pretty much why it is unwinnable. It is a war on a tactic.
It also sound vaguely fantastical in the Tolkien vein. Could sillier designations than "The War on Terror" be imagined? How about "The War Against Evil," or "The War Against the Inimical Minions of Darkness," or "The Campaign to Eradicate Unpleasantness of Any Kind." My choice, if only because of the acronym: the "Crusade to Utterly Negate Terrorists."
Of course they don't seem to have a real definition as to what a terrorist is. Some are calling Assange an "information terrorist" now so now you don't even have to try to kill anyone anymore, you just have to post embarrassing information on the web.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe war on terror is being won.
The war on terror is unwinnable.
The object is to stop terrorism from impacting US citizens. Terrorist attacks have been negligible since 9/11.
Now, yes, hysterical overreactions to the terrorist threats have inconvenienced us, and yes, the phrase "war on terror" is silly trite meaningless soundbite phraseology and it's possible that the terrorist threat isn't really all that great in the first place. But, for whatever reason and by whose ever actions, terrorist attacks on American citizens have been almost non-existent. You're more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed in a terrorist attack if you're a plain American in the street.
10 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThere was a very clear definition of what a terrorist is and what terrorism is until the Obama administration got in there.
That is pretty much why it is unwinnable. It is a war on a tactic.
Of course they don't seem to have a real definition as to what a terrorist is. Some are calling Assange an "information terrorist" now so now you don't even have to try to kill anyone anymore, you just have to post embarrassing information on the web.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Terrorist attacks were negligble before 9/11...
The war on terror is being won.
The object is to stop terrorism from impacting US citizens. Terrorist attacks have been negligible since 9/11.
Now, yes, hysterical overreactions to the terrorist threats have inconvenienced us, and yes, the phrase "war on terror" is silly trite meaningless soundbite phraseology and it's possible that the terrorist threat i ...[text shortened]... ightning than to be killed in a terrorist attack if you're a plain American in the street.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, though a little less negligible if one counts the embassy bombings and the USS Cole.
Terrorist attacks were negligble before 9/11...
But 9/11 could have marked the outset of a massive terrorist campaign against the US and, for whatever reason, it did not turn out that way.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Yes, but since we don't have an alternative universe where the "war on terror" didn't happen, it'll be hard to judge whether or not it worked.
Yes, though a little less negligible if one counts the embassy bombings and the USS Cole.
But 9/11 could have marked the outset of a massive terrorist campaign against the US and, for whatever reason, it did not turn out that way.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76The first world trade center bombing? The Berlin discotheque bombing? they dont count?
Yes, though a little less negligible if one counts the embassy bombings and the USS Cole.
But 9/11 could have marked the outset of a massive terrorist campaign against the US and, for whatever reason, it did not turn out that way.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe Berlin bombing wasn't in the US (last I checked) and the WTC bombing - one incident is not enough to remove something from being negligible.
The first world trade center bombing? The Berlin discotheque bombing? they dont count?
People die in shark attacks but the risk of dying in a shark attack is negligible.