How Do We End The War on Terror?

There is an easy way to stop the war on terror. Stop fighting.

Helix said:

The regional powers need to act to bring stability to their own region. We cannot and should not attempt to do it for them.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and Saudi Arabia has the worlds fourth largest military. I think that they could well handle the Islamic State

There are only two ways to end a war .... win or lose. There IS no middle ground ... ask Korea.

iacardsfan said:

There is an easy way to stop the war on terror. Stop fighting.

Click to expand...

That's one way to stop ONE HALF of the war on terror .... what do you propose for the other half?

lizzie said:

I dont care how crazy Islamists live in their societies, when they are muslim societies, since that is a part of what has produced them, but they have brought it to western societies, and they are a scourge. Imo, it is a shame that we can't turn them into dust. Every single one.

(And we aren't going to end this war, because we dont have the stomach to do what it takes)

Click to expand...

You're right about this. Until we as a nation get the guts to fight this war the right way, not this PC limp wristed feeble nonsense we now call war, this will go one for years. Sorry folks but we have to have a scorched earth policy and fight these new age nazis's with the end goal being to wipe them off the face of the planet.

iacardsfan said:

There is an easy way to stop the war on terror. Stop fighting.

Click to expand...

Spoken like someone that would prefer to put their head in the sand. Keep dreaming.

GBFAN said:

There are only two ways to end a war .... win or lose. There IS no middle ground ... ask Korea.

Click to expand...

Well, Iraq being a war of choice and not necessity, could simply have been avoided.

Montecresto said:

Well, Iraq being a war of choice and not necessity, could simply have been avoided.

Click to expand...

Again, revisionist facts delivered with benefit of hindsight.

Who cares? To quote the infamous Hillary Clinton ... "What difference does it make?"

We are where we are ... the question is "Where do we go from here?"

"How we got there" is reserved for historical analysis ... and, apparently, for those who don't have an answer for the first question, but feel it necessary to make ego-driven input while others try to figure out the answer..

GBFAN said:

Again, revisionist facts delivered with benefit of hindsight.

Who cares? To quote the infamous Hillary Clinton ... "What difference does it make?"

We are where we are ... the question is "Where do we go from here?"

"How we got there" is reserved for historical analysis ... and, apparently, for those who don't have an answer for the first question, but feel it necessary to make ego-driven input while others try to figure out the answer..

Click to expand...

Oh dear. Still lost on you as well. Ok, well perhaps you'll understand someday.

Montecresto said:

Oh dear. Still lost on you as well. Ok, well perhaps you'll understand someday.

Click to expand...

No answer, huh?

Duly noted.

DDD said:

Okay, but the jobs are not aimed at terrorists, they are aimed at civilians. Bludgeoning civilians into submission so as to carry out interests may not be appropriate?

Click to expand...

Terrorists are not civillians. They must be seen as enemy combatants or actually as vermin to be exterminated and unworthy of any polite considerations normally exercised in war. And we have to get past this politically correct notion that war is anything other than a horrendous inhumane and indecent act, bloody, unfair, unjust, and savage. While we will not deliberately target civilians who do not aid and abet the enemy, civilians of all ages will inevitably be in the line of fire from time to time and lose their homes, livelihood, and some will be injured, maimed, killed. If not by our hand then by that of the enemy. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy and destroy things. It should never EVER be undertaken when there is any alternative, but neither should we shy away from it when it is necessary to defend our persons, property, homeland, and critical interests.

GBFAN said:

No answer, huh?

Duly noted.

Click to expand...

Oh, was there a question for me??

Apocalypse said:

It was because I was providing links to prove the point that a country doesn't need to occupy Islamic lands to be under attack from radical Islam.
The Indonesian link proves it, the French one proves it, the Chinese one. So does the Indian one and many others. They provide cutting evidence to something that should be common sense - nobody is immune to radical Islam.

Click to expand...

Nope , your response was supposed to be refutation to the claim that countries that are directly involved in the atrocities against the Muslim world caused by the war on terror are less likely to be attacked by Muslim terrorists. The links actually backed the complete opposite view

You cited...

Norway , which hasn't been attacked ( yet , and contrary to your claim ) but has played a part in the above

Sweden , which has been attacked ( albeit a minor attack where the only person killed was the terrorist himself ). He stated the reason was Sweden's involvement in the war on terror ( TWT from now on )

Saudi Arabia and the US military personnel there. Attacked post 1991 attack on Iraq

Spain , which was attacked badly , but the attack was as a result of their involvement in TWT

London , attacked , the reason given by some of the attackers TWT

Pakistan , Peshawar , attacked , reason given objection to US drone attacks in Pakistan

India , Mumbai , attackers apparently searching for British and US tourists. That they targeted the tourists from those countries strongly suggests a link to TWT

The Somalia one is to do with the internal power struggles in the country and as such is unrelated to the question you responded to

The Bali bombings were apparently funded by Al Qaeda and are thus related to TWT

Separatist and internal domestic political disputes account for others

So the above generally supports the notion that being involved in TWT is behind many of the incidents you cited. That goes against your assertion completely

I actually did as I took the time in collecting them to make a statement

Click to expand...

That's not in dispute


And I'm not going to waste any more of my time time proving the above over and over again.

The point remains that your links undermine your claim

oneworld2 said:

Nope , your response was supposed to be refutation to the claim that countries that are directly involved in the atrocities against the Muslim world caused by the war on terror are less likely to be attacked by Muslim terrorists. The links actually backed the complete opposite view

You cited...

Norway , which hasn't been attacked ( yet , and contrary to your claim ) but has played a part in the above

Sweden , which has been attacked ( albeit a minor attack where the only person killed was the terrorist himself ). He stated the reason was Sweden's involvement in the war on terror ( TWT from now on )

Saudi Arabia and the US military personnel there. Attacked post 1991 attack on Iraq

Spain , which was attacked badly , but the attack was as a result of their involvement in TWT

London , attacked , the reason given by some of the attackers TWT

Pakistan , Peshawar , attacked , reason given objection to US drone attacks in Pakistan

India , Mumbai , attackers apparently searching for British and US tourists. That they targeted the tourists from those countries strongly suggests a link to TWT

The Somalia one is to do with the internal power struggles in the country and as such is unrelated to the question you responded to

The Bali bombings were apparently funded by Al Qaeda and are thus related to TWT

Separatist and internal domestic political disputes account for others

So the above generally supports the notion that being involved in TWT is behind many of the incidents you cited. That goes against your assertion completely

Click to expand...

Tried again failed again I guess.

First of all you've already been told that Islamic terrorism from separatist movements is an evidence that there are other reasons to Islamic terrorism than being involved in the war on terror - which is the claim you and some other funny posters here share.

Now, the attack on Sweden wasn't justified simply by the Swedish involvement in Afghanistan (which, again, was very minor) - but also by the drawing of Muhammad by a Swedish artist. That was the reasoning given in an email sent to Swedish security service ten minutes before the attacks anyway. So Islamic terrorists may also attack you because a person in your country decided to draw their prophet. Telling us much? Why yes indeed.
The Norwegian one - really? So because the threat was not followed through we are to believe that there was no threat?
The very threat nations face from Islamic terrorism is the subject here.
India - I disagree about the notion that Westerners were attacked, the attack came from a Pakistani terror group and the reasoning was India-Pakistani relations - which proves that Islamic terrorism attacks for many reasons yet again. By the way India was attacked two months before it as well in Delhi.
France - already proved you wrong.
China - the Islamic attacks came in response to the government campaign to remove the Islamic veil. Sounds like another cutting evidence that you're wrong.

Deal with it those attacks prove your claim that only by involving yourself with Islamic states you draw the fire from Islamic terrorists is illogical and nothing but bollocks, and in your case you took to the claim from a clear and known anti-Western agenda.

The war on terror will never end, it's just the beginning, the USA needs to stop being the Worlds police, until that happens, well then these problems of epic proportions will continue...

GBFAN said:

That's one way to stop ONE HALF of the war on terror .... what do you propose for the other half?

Click to expand...

That simple step would deal a great blow to recruiting efforts and the resources of terror groups. The US is the common denominator of these groups. People join because they are mad specifically at the United States. I am not saying ending our involvement will immediately cause threats to stop, but it will not only damage the resources of these groups, but also allow us to refocus our resources and prevent attacks on our home soil.

Gringo allstar said:

Spoken like someone that would prefer to put their head in the sand. Keep dreaming.

Click to expand...

The perpetual war the US has been engaged in over the past 15 years has not done a bit to solve the problem. The dangers are growing, the costs are growing, but the security of the American people is not. That should be saying something that our current course of action is neither sustainable, nor sensible.

AlbqOwl said:

Terrorists are not civillians. They must be seen as enemy combatants or actually as vermin to be exterminated and unworthy of any polite considerations normally exercised in war. And we have to get past this politically correct notion that war is anything other than a horrendous inhumane and indecent act, bloody, unfair, unjust, and savage. While we will not deliberately target civilians who do not aid and abet the enemy, civilians of all ages will inevitably be in the line of fire from time to time and lose their homes, livelihood, and some will be injured, maimed, killed. If not by our hand then by that of the enemy. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy and destroy things. It should never EVER be undertaken when there is any alternative, but neither should we shy away from it when it is necessary to defend our persons, property, homeland, and critical interests.

Click to expand...

"Our Western Christian imperialist enemies are not civilians. They must be seen as enemy combatants or actually as vermin to be exterminated and unworthy of any polite considerations normally exercised in war. And we have to get past this politically correct notion that our bombings and other forms of guerrilla warfare are anything other than a horrendous inhumane and indecent act, bloody, unfair, unjust, and savage. While we will not deliberately target civilians who do not aid and abet the enemy, civilians of all ages will inevitably be in the line of fire from time to time and lose their homes, livelihood, and some will be injured, maimed, killed. If not by our hand then by that of the enemy. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy and destroy things. It should never EVER be undertaken when there is any alternative, but neither should we shy away from it when it is necessary to defend our persons, property, homeland, and critical interests-The "Terrorists"

"Jews, Gypsies and Communists are not civilians. They must be seen as enemy combatants or actually as vermin to be exterminated and unworthy of any polite considerations normally exercised in war. And we have to get past this "civilized" notion that war is anything other than a horrendous inhumane and indecent act, bloody, unfair, unjust, and savage. While we will not deliberately target gentile civilians who do not aid and abet the enemy, civilians of all ages will inevitably be in the line of fire from time to time and lose their homes, livelihood, and some will be injured, maimed, killed. If not by our hand then by that of the enemy. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy and destroy things. It should never EVER be undertaken when there is any alternative, but neither should we shy away from it when it is necessary to defend our persons, property, homeland, and critical interests." Hitler's friends

iacardsfan said:

The perpetual war the US has been engaged in over the past 15 years has not done a bit to solve the problem. The dangers are growing, the costs are growing, but the security of the American people is not. That should be saying something that our current course of action is neither sustainable, nor sensible.

Click to expand...

See post 180

Gringo allstar said:

You're right about this. Until we as a nation get the guts to fight this war the right way, not this PC limp wristed feeble nonsense we now call war, this will go one for years. Sorry folks but we have to have a scorched earth policy and fight these new age nazis's with the end goal being to wipe them off the face of the planet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, things have changed dramatically since the good old days, when your goal was to slay your enemy. If reincarnation is a reality, I have little doubt that I spent a good bit of time with the sword. :lol:

iacardsfan said:

There is an easy way to stop the war on terror. Stop fighting.

Click to expand...

Just kneel down and bear your neck. In only hurts like hell for a little bit, usually ten minutes or less.

Gringo allstar said:

See post 180

Click to expand...

responding to that:

1) How do you plan on doing that. It is impossible to distinguish a peaceful Muslim and a Terrorist

and

2) Even if we are able to wipe out all of ISIS, there are other groups. New ones pop up. Perpetual war.

lizzie said:

Yeah, things have changed dramatically since the good old days, when your goal was to slay your enemy. If reincarnation is a reality, I have little doubt that I spent a good bit of time with the sword. :lol:

Click to expand...

You're what I would call a firecracker Lizzie! And that is meant as a compliment.

The answer is not declare victory and go home. The head-choppers only understand one thing, force. I have no problem giving it to them.

iacardsfan said:

That simple step would deal a great blow to recruiting efforts and the resources of terror groups. The US is the common denominator of these groups. People join because they are mad specifically at the United States. I am not saying ending our involvement will immediately cause threats to stop, but it will not only damage the resources of these groups, but also allow us to refocus our resources and prevent attacks on our home soil.

Click to expand...

It is only naivete that allows you to believe that ... but then, it's all our fault, right?