texasrebel211
Active member
yes or no?
discuss
i think it is doing something but it is more of a media thing
discuss
i think it is doing something but it is more of a media thing
Is the United States war on terrorism working?
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Sorry, I don't think we're winning the terrorism war. Just look at the borders, geez. We're doing something alright, but unless those are sealed up... sooner or later they're gonna use it to smuggle something major.
You can chase the taliban and Al Queda around the mountains, and that helps, but Al Queda has puppet factions, like the militant arm lead by Al Zarqawi in Iraq. They're gonna get ahold of some serious stuff, I tell ya....
You can chase the taliban and Al Queda around the mountains, and that helps, but Al Queda has puppet factions, like the militant arm lead by Al Zarqawi in Iraq. They're gonna get ahold of some serious stuff, I tell ya....
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
It's just one of those things that we're going to have to live with. A fight you can't not fight, but one that will probably not be "completely won" for many decades, perhaps over a century.... and there are those who argue that these "terrorist" kind of actions have happened throughout the ages, usually in the form of civilization vs barbarian hoards or pirates. They make a pretty good case.
And now in this age where information, communication and travel are so well developed, it acts as a gigantic force multiplier for these groups.
And now in this age where information, communication and travel are so well developed, it acts as a gigantic force multiplier for these groups.
Locke
Active member
untill there is greater understanding, there is no chance of the situation even remotely improving for a long time.
if the war on terrorism is against all groups everywhere who wish america harm, you will never win, for the simple fact that you cannot please everyone and there will always be people who feel that life has treated them harshly and they feel the need to strike out against people they see as oppressors.
if the war on terrorism is against all groups everywhere who wish america harm, you will never win, for the simple fact that you cannot please everyone and there will always be people who feel that life has treated them harshly and they feel the need to strike out against people they see as oppressors.
The secret behind winning this battle is killing the root of islamic fundamentalist teaching, like madrasas etc. in which future terrorists are made.Plus
I wonder now that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, how come bush did not attack Saudi Arabia ?....they are in a worse condition than Iraq.Plus they got oil too
unlike pakistan.
I wonder now that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, how come bush did not attack Saudi Arabia ?....they are in a worse condition than Iraq.Plus they got oil too
unlike pakistan.It's all a game
Active member
Hehe, I didn't vote because the answer would be a further question: To what end (is the war on terror working)?
The ones who decided to launch the war obviously believed it to be necessary as they see and live in the different reality from those who oppose the war. You can't reconcile opinions from people living in different realities!
What to do? Stop worrying! The sky won't fall, and if it does, your worry won't stop it from falling.
Still feel you have to do something? Pray to your God of whatever kind, and ask him/her/it/them to please please come down (assuming they are all up there) to earth and rule us earthlings directly. :lol:
The ones who decided to launch the war obviously believed it to be necessary as they see and live in the different reality from those who oppose the war. You can't reconcile opinions from people living in different realities!
What to do? Stop worrying! The sky won't fall, and if it does, your worry won't stop it from falling.
Still feel you have to do something? Pray to your God of whatever kind, and ask him/her/it/them to please please come down (assuming they are all up there) to earth and rule us earthlings directly. :lol:
Almost alone is never strong but the US got GB, Poland, Italy and others that do there best to protect this side of the world from terrorists. But unfortunately the efforts may also be only a delay. More countrys needs a gov change then Iraq and Afghanistan, including alot of western socialist countrys that is a place where terrorists can breed or multiply by splitting when their often new governments goes weak and soft and the people loose there ability to face their own reality and others reality by a verry effective converted socialist version of Dr. Joseph Goebbels propaganda machinery. After Adolf Hitler the German people was retraining and I sincerly think that big parts of the people in Europe needs that to, away from this destructive socialist miniatyr empire. *cough* sweden at least, only my two cents *cough*, and then and only then it would be more domestic and foregin support for the war against terrorism to be honest, and after some time the threat from terrorists would be in the history books.
:rambo:
Cheers:
Doc.S
:viking:
:rambo:
Cheers:
Doc.S
:viking:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
My bet is that if America didn't take the heat from fighting in the mideast, the prime front line of terror would actually be Europe.
FlyingFrog
Active member
No. The "War" is not going well. More people are feeling insecure.
Well, all starts sudden after 911.
Well, all starts sudden after 911.
Marksman
Active member
well i dont think that there is a "war" on terror at all,if there was,thye (USA,UK) would figure that they should use their sofisticated satelites and every other high-tec tools to find afgan(or any other) terrorists.By the state of the "war" now,i can only say that inicent ppl(irqi civilians and all troops present) are dieing,while big arse leaders are sitting and winning elections
A few weeks ago there was a security meeting in Washington DC and they were going over the new security measure for DC and the US. They talked about all kinds of stuff. But a figure I remember them mentioning was that 7% of all shipping was now being investigated by US Customs, and there are now Customs agents working in over seas ports to better filter shipping coming into the US from places we red flag. There are still on going debates between the shipping companies and the government over security and business that needs to be decided. First off, the US requires that certain containers be checked and they require a 1 week notice before arriving at port. But security checks and other things tend to slow down the shipping business and time is money. They are trying to come up with ways to please the shipping companies and meet the security demands, not an easy task.
But there was good news, the DC Metro has just implemented a new system that will help to contain and detect biological/chemical/radioactive material and it has been tested and works excellent. It's being implemented in other major metro stations. The border problem is being worked on and improving every single day. But with as much that goes through our borders, small changes seem to do little to dent the problem we face. The main thing is we are improving our systems and making it more automated. So I wouldn't say we are losing anything. We have definetly made the US a safer country.
One of the major problems that was covered was the issue of bridges. There was a recent discovery that no one knew how many bridges were in the US, how many of them were in disrepair, and how many of them were prone to attack. I won't even mention the numbers on that because they're kind of disconcerting. The debate over that problem is that the states want federal money to repair them, but the government believes it's a state issue. Either way the problem needs to be fixed because they link major roadways and the destruction of a few bridges would be a major kink in our side.
But there was good news, the DC Metro has just implemented a new system that will help to contain and detect biological/chemical/radioactive material and it has been tested and works excellent. It's being implemented in other major metro stations. The border problem is being worked on and improving every single day. But with as much that goes through our borders, small changes seem to do little to dent the problem we face. The main thing is we are improving our systems and making it more automated. So I wouldn't say we are losing anything. We have definetly made the US a safer country.
One of the major problems that was covered was the issue of bridges. There was a recent discovery that no one knew how many bridges were in the US, how many of them were in disrepair, and how many of them were prone to attack. I won't even mention the numbers on that because they're kind of disconcerting. The debate over that problem is that the states want federal money to repair them, but the government believes it's a state issue. Either way the problem needs to be fixed because they link major roadways and the destruction of a few bridges would be a major kink in our side.
texasrebel211
Active member
This more has to do with security but it still is related to the war on terror/terrorism. If someone really wanted to kill a bunch of people it wouldn't be hard. Its not that hard to get something on an airplane, on accident I had a big ass pair of scissors in my bag yet they didn't get it. Another thing, why would you sell lighters inside the terminal? I know people smoke but if a group of people started a fire in their area of the plane their coule be trouble. Also, there are a shit load of soft targets such as malls. If terrorists were able to coordinate attacks on mall, lets just throw out 100 people dead per state(this wouldn't be too hard) that is 5k dead. Even worse would be if they attacked, hid, and then attacked again. The US couldn't handle it.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
As a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) guy I'll tell you those satellites are next to useless in detecting guys like Osama Bin Laden. Only when they set up shop in Afghanistan was it useful. Once they go into a city or anywhere they blend in, the satellite is a nice piece of scrap metal floating around in space.
Signals interception is very tricky and hardly works now since Osama found out that his phone signals were being intercepted. Now it's all by courier.. which means whatever he does is significantly delayed and coordination is a problem... probably the single best reason why there hasn't been an attack so far.
You need spies.
And yes there is a war going on. Or else the guys I seen come back from Afghanistan with CIBs on their chests are just actors playing dressup. There is a lot of shooting and a lot of stuff they still can't tell us.
On your note on Bush winning the election, that had more to do with the home front than abroad. Most people voting Bush I think agreed that Iraq was not a smart move, but they felt that Kerry and his group were going to pretty much destroy Christianity in America. That's what won Bush the election.
So what they need is spies (aka HUMINT) because only they can detect changes in behavior patterns effectively. They can read people's faces, measure local activity of the local strong men... are they changing? etc. Is the Imam at the Mosque starting to sound different? etc. etc. etc.
So far, preventing Osama's attacks by crippling his communication and infrastructure and his business have done a great job. The only thing that needs to happen is Osama needs to be captured... it'll be a victory for morale and perhaps justice.
Signals interception is very tricky and hardly works now since Osama found out that his phone signals were being intercepted. Now it's all by courier.. which means whatever he does is significantly delayed and coordination is a problem... probably the single best reason why there hasn't been an attack so far.
You need spies.
And yes there is a war going on. Or else the guys I seen come back from Afghanistan with CIBs on their chests are just actors playing dressup. There is a lot of shooting and a lot of stuff they still can't tell us.
On your note on Bush winning the election, that had more to do with the home front than abroad. Most people voting Bush I think agreed that Iraq was not a smart move, but they felt that Kerry and his group were going to pretty much destroy Christianity in America. That's what won Bush the election.
So what they need is spies (aka HUMINT) because only they can detect changes in behavior patterns effectively. They can read people's faces, measure local activity of the local strong men... are they changing? etc. Is the Imam at the Mosque starting to sound different? etc. etc. etc.
So far, preventing Osama's attacks by crippling his communication and infrastructure and his business have done a great job. The only thing that needs to happen is Osama needs to be captured... it'll be a victory for morale and perhaps justice.
Marksman said:
I think we went a little too far with the crippling of his communications structure. When we destroyed all of the sat dishes in Afghanistan after 9/11 we destroyed our only links we had to monitoring Osama's messages. It only added to the problem later when he figured out that we were listening. The reason we keep getting Orange alerts and all that junk is because the NSA will detect an increase in chatter through SIGINT. If it wasn't for the fact that we destroyed those dishes we would probably be more accurate about some type of information.
HUMINT should have been the basis for intel a lot sooner. It was a huge part of intel during the Cold War. But with the public becoming so concerned over dead americans we pushed more towards satellites and other SIGINT.
Soft targets have always been a problem, but they don't have the same psychological impact as hitting the Golden Gate Bridge. Does anyone remember about that Pizza guy in the midwest who had a bomb strapped to his chest and claimed someone else had the controls? I doubt anyone remembers what has come of it. Point being, it was a soft target that made the national news, but barely did anything to dent the American psyche. Terrorists realize this which is why they would rather "go big or go home," as we kama'aina would say. Small attacks with car bombs and blowing up a McDonalds would definetly be a tragedy, but we'd forget about it ever happening within a week. I guess that's one thing that counts towards the US "I don't care about anything except me" attitude. Sometimes we're so self absorbed we could care less.
HUMINT should have been the basis for intel a lot sooner. It was a huge part of intel during the Cold War. But with the public becoming so concerned over dead americans we pushed more towards satellites and other SIGINT.
Soft targets have always been a problem, but they don't have the same psychological impact as hitting the Golden Gate Bridge. Does anyone remember about that Pizza guy in the midwest who had a bomb strapped to his chest and claimed someone else had the controls? I doubt anyone remembers what has come of it. Point being, it was a soft target that made the national news, but barely did anything to dent the American psyche. Terrorists realize this which is why they would rather "go big or go home," as we kama'aina would say. Small attacks with car bombs and blowing up a McDonalds would definetly be a tragedy, but we'd forget about it ever happening within a week. I guess that's one thing that counts towards the US "I don't care about anything except me" attitude. Sometimes we're so self absorbed we could care less.
Before we talk about how to handle terrorism and how the situation goes, why don't we discuss the reason why the Islam extremist rise up the terrorism?
I believe the reason it rise up such things still comes mainly becoz of the oil, my brother talked to an Middle east guy before, that guy told my bro that the western world exploited them by taking our the authority of oil from them. So I see the rerrorism is built to get the western people out from persecuting them. Agree?Agree?Agree?
So, in my opinion, best way to stop the terrorism up is stop exploiting them by geting the oil form them in Middle east area.
Also, I would like to condemm USA for they r not really declare this war for peace, but for they own good. Becoz during 2-3 years ago it happened to a Africa nation conflict (Racial discrimination If I am not mistaken). And yet USA did not give any help but still remain their TERRORISM WAR AND WANTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
I believe the reason it rise up such things still comes mainly becoz of the oil, my brother talked to an Middle east guy before, that guy told my bro that the western world exploited them by taking our the authority of oil from them. So I see the rerrorism is built to get the western people out from persecuting them. Agree?Agree?Agree?
So, in my opinion, best way to stop the terrorism up is stop exploiting them by geting the oil form them in Middle east area.
Also, I would like to condemm USA for they r not really declare this war for peace, but for they own good. Becoz during 2-3 years ago it happened to a Africa nation conflict (Racial discrimination If I am not mistaken). And yet USA did not give any help but still remain their TERRORISM WAR AND WANTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Ezechiel said:
Alright, we'll do that, we don't buy anymore middle-east oil.
That'll make their economies really happy.
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
They already very happy now, becoz most of the profits goes into the pocket of the American and they get nothing. That's why they were angry, morever American went to support Israel this even worse.
U don't buy it others will buy it. And American surely need it. For today many of the American oil company deployed in Middle East and got the oil soil.
My point is that the Local Middle East citizen should have got even more from their own resources. But the westerners came and got all those resources away. This make them very poor. So what's the different between U DON'T BUY with CONQUERING PPL'S OIL?
Majority of the Middle East countries today r still poor. Don't think the local civilians really get economic benefits from their own oil resource.
Ezechiel, we had a long discussion on the many different aspects as to the origins of Islamic terror. Check out this thread. We went through everything from religious zealots to sykes-picot.
I think we are definetely fighting a losing battle. There was absolutely no point in invading Iraq this time. George bush and his administration should get their priorities straight. They are way too greedy and power hungry.
Anyways all the conflicts going on the United States army is just making the conflicts even more serious by getting the people causing it mad for interfering with their own situations.
Ah well all the better when hes gone in 4 years. 4 years we can't afford.
Anyways all the conflicts going on the United States army is just making the conflicts even more serious by getting the people causing it mad for interfering with their own situations.
Ah well all the better when hes gone in 4 years. 4 years we can't afford.