How Do We End The War on Terror?

US Conservative said:

Obama did not pull out because of sharia law, he pulled out because he insisted at the last minute that the Iraqi govt jump through hoops for him that they weren't willing to do-Obama KNEW this and pulled out anyway.

As for Maliki and Iran-Obama had 6 years to address this and did nothing. Obama lost the peace for votes in an election season.

Click to expand...

And George Bush had six years to train the Iraqi army to stand on their own. US trained and equipped, 200,000 and they couldn't do the job. But then, none of that has anything to do with the failure of attacking, invading and destabilizing a country that had done nothing to us.

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...

Well the links in post 2 are aimed at civilians. It could be perceived as a precaution or prevention to stop them from becoming terrorists.

The one that is already a terrorist then all the above applies. The links should only derail people from becoming terrorists. It is influence to stop them doing that over poverty.

All the better for then we may know that the terrorists are not there for money. They had options and choose to be terrorists.

Grand Mal said:

There's a few people in Boston and London and Mumbai who would disagree. And numerous others. Nothing is contained.
As for 'recolonizing', that's what got you into this mess in the first place. Unless you think the 9-11 attacks were because 'they hate you because of your freedom'.

Click to expand...

Mumbai isn't connected to same problem her. There's definitely an underlying cause of course, but if you are really going to connect Mumbai, you might as well include the attacks on Russia and China. What happened in Boston was a lone wolf episode, and while those can certainly be deadly, they are no where near the level of what happened on 9/11. As far as London goes, Europe has their own problems with radical Islam that is far more systemic than is in the US. The truth of the matter is that as long as there is some cleric spewing hatred, you probably will have those lone wolfs. But again, we haven't had a major attack on the homeland on the scale of 9/11 for 13 years. And that says a lot.

What got us "into this mess" was because Bin Laden became a whinely little b**** who didn't like the fact that Saudi Arabia knew they could do better then a bunch of ragtag thugs to defend against Saddam Hussein. Also, when the Arabs were properly under boot, (In the British Empire and before that the Ottomans), you didn't have all this nonsense going on.

Montecresto said:

And George Bush had six years to train the Iraqi army to stand on their own. US trained and equipped, 200,000 and they couldn't do the job. But then, none of that has anything to do with the failure of attacking, invading and destabilizing a country that had done nothing to us.

Click to expand...

As long as your acknowledging Obama has a hand in this pie... granted though Bush did as much as he could, and it's not really his fault Maliki turned into a secularist now is it?

DDD said:

Well the links in post 2 are aimed at civilians. It could be perceived as a precaution or prevention to stop them from becoming terrorists.

The one that is already a terrorist then all the above applies. The links should only derail people from becoming terrorists. It is influence to stop them doing that over poverty.

All the better for then we may know that the terrorists are not there for money. They had options and choose to be terrorists.

Click to expand...

I think my philosophy re how to deal with terrorism would eventually discourage and discredit the terrorists to the point that they could not so easily recruit new terrorists. Render the evil impotent to work their evil--take away their success--and most rational people will choose some other line of work. So the civilian population would be less likely to become enemy combatents. I cannot morally embrace a concept that suggests we kill people because they MIGHT choose to do evil at some later time. I have no problem with killing those who do evil and intend to do more.

But I did take note of Eric Holder's pronouncement that religious profiling would not be tolerated in our defense against terrorism.

When Nidal Hasan, who had been taking Islamic training from Anwar al-Awlaki, picked up a handgun and murdered 12 soldiers (one pregnant) and injured 29 others, the Obama administration labeled the incident 'workplace violence.' When Alton Nolan attacked and beheaded a woman and was in the process of killing another--the incident closely following the gruesome ISIS beheadings in the international news--and it was revealed that he had recently converted to Islam, the Obama Administration is labeling the incident as 'workplace violence.' Give me a break. Given that 90 percent or better of terrorist activity around the world is being committed by Islamic extremists or opportunists, to not consider that in the equation is just dumb.

Until we can set aside the politically correct garbage that has made us into a society of timid sheeple and start calling the evil for what it is, we have little or no chance to effectively deal with the problem. There is certainly no reluctance to call Christian activism for what it is, and to graphically point out a Christian's faith when he or she commits a crime. And when that is done there is no concern whatsoever about offending peaceful Christians. Why are we so timid and afraid that we might offend a peaceful Muslim? If it is somehow dangerous to offend a peaceful Muslim while it is not dangerous to offend a peaceful Christian, shouldn't Islam be considered more dangerous than Christianity?

And if the consequences of offending are not greater in the Islamic world, then why should Islam get greater deference and protection than Christianity.

And I say this having Muslim friends, neighbors, and colleagues who I feel absolutely no threat from, who are delightful people, and I love them dearly. So I am NOT saying that all Muslims are evil or dangerous or anything like that. But the fact is that it is Islam involved in most terrorism these days and it is just dumb not to recognize that and factor it into our efforts to stop terrorism.

RDS said:

There is nothing you can do. It's deep-rooted in them that all non-believers should be killed.

Click to expand...

It's 'deep rooted' in who exactly?

Uhhhhm... probably the only way is to conquer all terrorist supporting lands and turn them into U.S. Commonwealths controlled by U.S. law.

I mean... in the long run it's probably better for all the woman and children that live there.

.... but that's an obvious radical solution that would make many upset.... but is it the only real way?

PoS said:

Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?

Click to expand...

The title of War on Terrorism is a misnomer, it is nothing more than a modern day crusade. I do not see a foreseeable end to this religious War.

RDS said:

There is nothing you can do. It's deep-rooted in them that all non-believers should be killed.

Click to expand...

Despite such claims, in many times and places, Muslims have been more tolerant of other religions than Christians have been in many times and places.

Is there an end to the War on Terror? It's whack a mole, you defeat one organization and all the wannabe jihadist flood to a new one and each new one is called "worse" than the last.

Our War on Terror was a success is killing OBL but has been a failure by every other measure.

Hamster Buddha said:

As long as your acknowledging Obama has a hand in this pie... granted though Bush did as much as he could, and it's not really his fault Maliki turned into a secularist now is it?

Click to expand...

Of course I acknowledge Obama's hand in the Middle East woes. He's done at least as much damage as George Bush. And I agree with you that Bush did as much damage as he could. And attacking Iraq, which had no connection to OBL or Al Qaeda, was impotent to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city, and removing Saddam Hussein who was quite effective in containment of terrorist groups within his borders is the catalyst to the trouble we have today. Then, installing a puppet government that didn't provide equal Shia/Sunni access/leadership and failing in six years time to properly train a military that could defend their borders is just a huge smear on his legacy.

Here's my answer:

Brich said:

Here's my answer:

View attachment 67173701

Click to expand...

Thankfully you're not in possession of the football.

iacardsfan said:

It is. There was never in history a terrorist bombing in Iraq before the US invasion. This is not the only instance of this. The United States and its allies destabilized the middle east by drawing lines where they pleased, using the area for proxy wars, and propping up leaders that would play favorably to our interests. Now this is the results.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with a dictator that committed genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, institutionalized rape, intentionally starved hundreds of thousands, violated 17 unscrs and had a fake WMD program.

Yeah, those were not problems and they didn't contribute to the mess today.

DA60 said:

It's 'deep rooted' in who exactly?

Click to expand...

Extremists.

ecofarm said:

Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with a dictator that committed genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, institutionalized rape, intentionally starved hundreds of thousands, violated 17 unscrs and had a fake WMD program.

Yeah, those were not problems and they didn't contribute to the mess today.

Click to expand...

While I must admit there were atrocious human rights violations by the Hussein regime, that doe not change the fact that Hussein was able to stifle terrorism almost fully in the area.

Montecresto said:

Of course I acknowledge Obama's hand in the Middle East woes. He's done at least as much damage as George Bush. And I agree with you that Bush did as much damage as he could. And attacking Iraq, which had no connection to OBL or Al Qaeda, was impotent to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city, and removing Saddam Hussein who was quite effective in containment of terrorist groups within his borders is the catalyst to the trouble we have today. Then, installing a puppet government that didn't provide equal Shia/Sunni access/leadership and failing in six years time to properly train a military that could defend their borders is just a huge smear on his legacy.

Click to expand...

Sadly, this was no puppet government, this is what the Iraqi people wanted. If it was simply a "puppet", Maliki would of been gone a long time ago... same with Karzi. Ultimately, I find the fault of Iraq's current ails to be less so on either the Bush or Obama administration (although cases can be made they either made things worse or originally initiated the problem). Bottom line, When Bush left office in 2008 (and to a lesser extent but still so when Obama withdrew the troops) the country was whole and violence was down to a minimum.

We're not Russia who go around pushing phony elections for regimes that we back. Hell, Iran is a bigger ally to Iraq than we are this point.

Also, had ISIS of gone through Shia lands instead of Sunni, you would of seen a far more capable Iraqi Army. The truth is, Maliki didn't care if the Sunnis territory fell, as long as the Shia (and the oil) was safe. There's a reason why ISIS hasn't been able to push further into Iraq...

Jango said:

The title of War on Terrorism is a misnomer, it is nothing more than a modern day crusade. I do not see a foreseeable end to this religious War.

Click to expand...

Modern Day Crusade? That seems to imply that we give a **** if their Christian or not, which isn't the case. Keep in mind, only one side is making this a ware about religion. Besides, Islam is at war with just about every country on the planet, so that pretty much blows that argument up.

ecofarm said:

Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with a dictator that committed genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, institutionalized rape, intentionally starved hundreds of thousands, violated 17 unscrs and had a fake WMD program.

Yeah, those were not problems and they didn't contribute to the mess today.

Click to expand...

Like it or not, he did keep Sunnis in check, and had an army that would defend it's land unlike the current regime. Face is, if Saddam was in power, we have an issue with ISIS. Yes he was a very bad guy, but he was a bad guy that could be contained and was. You telling me that knowing what you do now (specifically about the fake WMD program) that you'd support the war again? Who's to say if Assad was removed, we wouldn't end up in the same situation as we are in Iraq. Hell even Egypt elected the MB when given the chance...

Hamster Buddha said:

Sadly, this was no puppet government, this is what the Iraqi people wanted. If it was simply a "puppet", Maliki would of been gone a long time ago... same with Karzi. Ultimately, I find the fault of Iraq's current ails to be less so on either the Bush or Obama administration (although cases can be made they either made things worse or originally initiated the problem). Bottom line, When Bush left office in 2008 (and to a lesser extent but still so when Obama withdrew the troops) the country was whole and violence was down to a minimum.

We're not Russia who go around pushing phony elections for regimes that we back. Hell, Iran is a bigger ally to Iraq than we are this point.

Click to expand...

US Slams Its Former Iraq Puppet: "The Maliki Government, Candidly, Has Got To Go"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...-puppet-maliki-government-candidly-has-got-go

A factor in the US endorsement for Maliki is undoubtedly his role on the constitutional committee. He is a man they know will adapt himself to American demands.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/04/iraq-a26.html

Indeed, Maliki is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last, leader propped up, armed, and supported politically and militarily by the US, only to then become the proverbial “greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-st...-the-war-against-the-islamic-state-is/5389805

Montecresto said:

US Slams Its Former Iraq Puppet: "The Maliki Government, Candidly, Has Got To Go"

Click to expand...

Was that suppose to be a news article? Because you saying it doesn't make it true. Unless you are trying to imply that the fact that we said "Maliki Government... has... to go" is some acknowledgment, Keep in mind we made the same proclamation to Syria, and I doubt you'd try to push that label on him.

Look if you don't know what a puppet is, just go look at the Old Soviet Union Warsaw Pact Countries, or Afghanistan during and before their conflict with the Soviets. Those are puppets who march lockstep in line with their masters in Moscow. The US does do that (anymore at least) as it is (the position of the US Government, not mine at this point) the policy to support the will of the people, no matter how they vote... (Until things get hairy anyways).

Hamster Buddha said:

Was that suppose to be a news article? Because you saying it doesn't make it true. Unless you are trying to imply that the fact that we said "Maliki Government... has... to go" is some acknowledgment, Keep in mind we made the same proclamation to Syria, and I doubt you'd try to push that label on him.

Look if you don't know what a puppet is, just go look at the Old Soviet Union Warsaw Pact Countries, or Afghanistan during and before their conflict with the Soviets. Those are puppets who march lockstep in line with their masters in Moscow. The US does do that (anymore at least) as it is (the position of the US Government, not mine at this point) the policy to support the will of the people, no matter how they vote... (Until things get hairy anyways).

Click to expand...

Check my post again!

You can't end a War on an idea like Terror, because it's not winnable. There's not a tangible enemy to defeat, per se, with an indigenous people, who occupy a region of religious zealotism. We had a bunch of strong arm dictators in place, with our support, who were keeping their countries inline as a whole, except for Afghanistan, which had some terrorists bases for the original AQ. Now, we've supported the overthrow of most the regions leaders, destabilized the whole ME, spent trillions of dollars and lost lives over a misguided concept of controlling sectarianism and oil resources.

All we had to do, was put pressure on the Saudi's to clean up the mess they helped create, and tapped down the AQ in Afghanistan. But we couldn't stop there and do that because of our arrogance and thirst for revenge.

Montecresto said:

US Slams Its Former Iraq Puppet: "The Maliki Government, Candidly, Has Got To Go"

US Slams Its Former Iraq Puppet: "The Maliki Government, Candidly, Has Got To Go" | Zero Hedge

Click to expand...

That first link is a joke, who exactly is zero hedge? And are you really going to side with what may be a bunch of college guys in a dorm smoking or snorting it up while they're writing these articles?

Montecresto said:

A factor in the US endorsement for Maliki is undoubtedly his role on the constitutional committee. He is a man they know will adapt himself to American demands.

Behind the installation of Jawad al-Maliki as Iraqi prime minister - World Socialist Web Site

Click to expand...

Can't you find any legit news articles to back you up? Despite this, I don't disagree we were looking someone who would follow our demands, it all depends on what the demands are. As you should know, our whole objective in Iraq was to get a stable government that represented everyone. But you're right, unlike some countries I could mention, we get sort of uncomfortable when backing up ruthless tyrants... hey isn't Russia backing Assad? Again, a puppet government isn't one that isn't merely someone who is supported/backed by another country, but one who acts in the best interest in not their own government, but of their puppeteers. See the Warsaw Pact countries, specifically I'd recommend you starting with Ukraine during the Soviet Union.

Montecresto said:

Indeed, Maliki is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last, leader propped up, armed, and supported politically and militarily by the US, only to then become the proverbial “greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.”

The Strange Case of Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki against the Backdrop of the “War” against the Islamic State (IS) | Global Research

Click to expand...

Oh goodie, another Anti-US website. At least this one has the credibility of being a think tank. Let me offer a little advice when you are sourcing things; look for outlets and organizations that either have opposing viewpoints to the one you have one and ones the other side might normally agree with (Jon Stewart when he went after Sibelius). Or if that fails, at least reference a news source with a some international recognition. Not these trailer trash websites you offered.

By the way, you know what really started this whole "propping up of leaders" in the Middle East. Could it be the Soviet Union had a hand in some of those governments back in the day? Oh how quickly we brush the cold war under the rug when it muddies our arguments...

I'll put it to you another way... would you call the old West Germany a puppet state? Of course not, they were a free and independent country. They are no more the puppet than Merkel and Germany's current government is. The only reason the US had ties with it is because the same couldn't be said of East Germany. That my friend, is what a puppet looks like.

grip said:

You can't end a War on an idea like Terror, because it's not winnable. There's not a tangible enemy to defeat, per se, with an indigenous people, who occupy a region of religious zealotism. We had a bunch of strong arm dictators in place, with our support, who were keeping their countries inline as a whole, except for Afghanistan, which had some terrorists bases for the original AQ. Now, we've supported the overthrow of most the regions leaders, destabilized the whole ME, spent trillions of dollars and lost lives over a misguided concept of controlling sectarianism and oil resources.

All we had to do, was put pressure on the Saudi's to clean up the mess they helped create, and tapped down the AQ in Afghanistan. But we couldn't stop there and do that because of our arrogance and thirst for revenge.

Click to expand...

Oh god will you stop with the Oil. Have you ever stopped to look just where Iraq's oil goes? I'm going to take that as no, as if you did, you would clearly realize how ludicrous that statement was.

You wanna know what US policy has been about for the last decade and a half. It was a noble (yet naive) idea that if the world was more free, if the people had a say in their government, then the world would be a better place. Of course, we gave them freedom and in almost every instance (Tunisia being the lone exception), the governments always turn sectarian, or are handed over to radicals and terrorist. It's apparent now that Arab society is far inferior to western society, which is why I don't support removing Assad at this time. However, one cannot say that US Foreign Policy wasn't done with good intentions in mind. I just wish that someone would of reminded the people coming up with this policy of just where good intentions will lead.

Hamster Buddha said:

Oh god will you stop with the Oil. Have you ever stopped to look just where Iraq's oil goes? I'm going to take that as no, as if you did, you would clearly realize how ludicrous that statement was.

You wanna know what US policy has been about for the last decade and a half. It was a noble (yet naive) idea that if the world was more free, if the people had a say in their government, then the world would be a better place. Of course, we gave them freedom and in almost every instance (Tunisia being the lone exception), the governments always turn sectarian, or are handed over to radicals and terrorist. It's apparent now that Arab society is far inferior to western society, which is why I don't support removing Assad at this time. However, one cannot say that US Foreign Policy wasn't done with good intentions in mind. I just wish that someone would of reminded the people coming up with this policy of just where good intentions will lead.

Click to expand...

Bush is the one that said, 'we're addicted to oil', remember?

US policy was about creating more capitalist countries, in the name of democracy, that would purchase more retail materialism. That's always been their intention, that as long as they could get a bunch of religious fanatics addicted to the comfort of easy living, they would have more control over them. They simply underestimated how much these countries didn't want to accept their puppet regimes and indirect control over them.

I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with our lifestyle in the Western world, it works for me. But we can't just force it on everyone else because our politicians say so, and their wealthy elite supporters want it.

Hamster Buddha said:

Modern Day Crusade?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I said. I said that because it is true. Look at what President Bush was saying at the time. His foreign policy choices were guided by religion, like his infamous conversation with the French President or 'God told me to invade Iraq' rationale for War. He made it a crusade, which is what Israel had been wanting for a long time because they were sick and ****ing tired of militant Islam.