Can the war on terror be won?

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:54 pm

If we look at the war on terror, which has spread between afghanistan, iraq, libya and pakistan, we will find many renewable sources of conflict. If the west was to leave the areas, and the state was to leave them alone, there would be peace. The whole fact that they are there is the cause of the war, and the involvement of the countries in these fights would see them fight because they are being sought.

So what would happen if the near east was to leave the militants alone? I think pakistan already has sharia law, so they could just leave them alone and watch the peace flow. The exceptions are areas where they have christians and muslims living close together.

If we were to give them sharia law in africa, the christians wouldn;t mind that much. It is just stricter morality, with laws keeping the stricter morality in place.

What should be done to end the war on terror?

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:10 pm

Maybe there could be something done to do away with bombings? If they were to rig radiowaves that emitted a signal that picked up moving manure or gunpowder, then they could always pin point bombs on the move?

If they were to take the airport chemical sniffer used to find bombs, and attach that somehow, or convert it, to a bomb sniffer that worked over radio waves, then they could pin point small amounts being carried or on the move in urban areas where they bomb places.

This can be done by sending the gamma ray between two points, and using a speed clock like the traffic cops to pinpoint where it is. Gamma rays penetrate many solid things, like lead even. If they were to set this 'web' up inside the city, they could along with sensors on the outside of the city centre, pinpoint where these amounts are at all times.

Would that drastically reduce the bombings in terror places?

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:21 am

in short No it cannot be won. Terror has been with us all from the beginning of time. this act is nothing new at all.

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:46 am

Terrorism is what you call it when it is against your own interests.
Freedom-fighting is the name given it by those with another point of view.

by Penderyn Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:20 pm

Get out of Muslim countries and leave crusades to Yanks and there should be no problems. 'Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return', that's all.

by astra Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:27 pm

OK,

Fly in the ointment - OIL

2 rats pi55ing in the ointment - Russia & China

by Penderyn Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:03 pm

astra wrote:OK,

Fly in the ointment - OIL

2 rats pi55ing in the ointment - Russia & China

Invest in renewable power. You can't kill all the people in the oil-countries anyway.

by ROB Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:00 pm

At least 120 killed in north Nigeria sect attacks
By IBRAHIM GARBA and JON GAMBRELL | Associated Press – 1 hr 21 mins ago

KANO, Nigeria (AP) — Coordinated attacks claimed by a radical Islamist sect killed at least 120 people in north Nigeria's largest city...

In a statement issued late Friday, federal police spokesman Olusola Amore said attackers targeted five police buildings, two immigration offices and the local headquarters of the State Security Service, Nigeria's secret police.

A Boko Haram spokesman using the nom de guerre Abul-Qaqa claimed responsibility for the attacks...

Boko Haram has carried out increasingly sophisticated and bloody attacks in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across Nigeria, a multiethnic nation of more than 160 million people.

Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sacrilege" in the local Hausa language, is responsible for at least 510 killings last year alone...

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/least-120-killed-north-nigeria-sect-attacks-142452652.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terrorism, Islamofascist-syle, is a war against Western civilization.

by Penderyn Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:48 pm

Dunno, really. Someone who might be supposed to know told me the Nigerian army killed about fifty Boko Haram supporters before the latest round of violence started. After the Libyan business, I suppose, I just don't believe anything about 'Western Civilization' when it comes to its crusades. If Cameron is for something, it's criminal, that's for sure.

by bobby Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:09 pm

I dont know if war on terror can be won, but those fighting it would stand a much better chance, if their hands weren't tied behind their backs with rules that in fact protect the terrorist.
Wars like Vietnam werent lost in the paddy fields, but in Paris by effing polititions, the same as the dirty filthy Micks in Northern Ireland got away with so much. We play closely to a set of rules, whereas terrorists make theirs up as the go along, then break them the next day.
To beat terrorism, you have to be better armed, a damn sight more evil and be allowed to do the job army style, not polititians style

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:39 pm

If the Army's authority is superior to Politicians', what you have is a Military Government.

Popular since the Romans ruled Europa.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:53 am

Penderyn wrote:Get out of Muslim countries and leave crusades to Yanks and there should be no problems. 'Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return', that's all.

PENDERYN
Sound about right too me. I just cannot see any winners in this at all myself

by Penderyn Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:56 pm

Stox 16 wrote:
Penderyn wrote:Get out of Muslim countries and leave crusades to Yanks and there should be no problems. 'Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return', that's all.

PENDERYN
Sound about right too me. I just cannot see any winners in this at all myself

Nor me - and I remember Wilson keeping out of Vietnam, so it ought to be possible even now!

by witchfinder Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:14 pm

Our instinctive processes derive from primates, therefore we as humans are tribal by nature, whether it be picking on the ginger kid at school, catholics throwing stones at protestants or racism in the form of white versus black.

Its why we club together into distinct areas called nations or countries, design little flags to say who we are, and then hoist the flag up or wave them around singing patriotic songs, declaring which tribe we belong to.

The fact that humans are tribal, and therefore still have some primitive characteristics is obvious when you see a gang from one part of town fighting a gang from another part of town.

So no, unfortunately we will not stop terrorism because the bottom line is we as humans are simply a bunch of apes.

by astra Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:38 pm

we as humans are simply a bunch of apes.

You can say that! I simply would not even suggest it!! Very Happy

by **astradt1** Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:47 pm

Has there ever been a 'war' against terrorist won or have they always ended in negotiations?

by oftenwrong Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:37 pm

Several "Terrorists" imprisoned by Britain's Colonial governors in Africa, eventually found themselves elected President of their Country when the British withdrew.

by ROB Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:59 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Several "Terrorists" imprisoned by Britain's Colonial governors in Africa, eventually found themselves elected President of their Country when the British withdrew.

Jomo Kenyatta was among them.

Another “terrorist” imprisoned for twenty-nine years on Robbins Island by the “government” (non-legitimate0 of a “kinda sorta” ex-British colony was also elected president of his country in the first election in his native country in which he was allowed to vote. That man, in my opinion one of the greatest political heroes of modern history, who in my assessment prevented through force of character the nationwide bloodbath predicted by geo-political experts as the precursor to true democracy, a man who, at more than seventy years of age, first voted in the election in which he was elected president of his country, is Nelson Mandela.

As with Mandela, each of the persons implicitly referenced by OW had something negotiable that they wanted. That’s the key difference between even the immoral wing of the IRA at its most despicable and al qaida. The IRA wants everything British, Ulsterish, and Protestantish gone from Ireland yesterday. al qaida (lowercase intentional) wants Westerners, non Muslims, and decent Muslims gone from existence yesteryear.

During a press briefing, a one star aide to the overall field commander of allied troops searching for and destroying al qaida beasts was asked what objectives had been achieved by a certain successful allied operation. “Dead al qaida” was his response. When asked again, he responded “Dead al qaida.”

Tony Blair, during an interview with Ted Koppel, asked Koppel a question: “Why did al qaida kill three thousand people on 9/11?” Koppel had no answer. Blair said, “Because they couldn’t kill thirty thousand.”

Decency cannot negotiate with bestiality. Dead al qaida are good al qaida.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:10 am

Penderyn wrote:Nor me - and I remember Wilson keeping out of Vietnam, so it ought to be possible even now!

PENDERYN
We are as one on this. as we could be wasting time and money on this for the next 100 years and still be having to find more of both. Wilson was dead right in my view and god only know how much money he saved us. the trouble with us is we still think of ourselves as a world power. when we are not.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:15 am

RockOnBrother wrote:Tony Blair, during an interview with Ted Koppel, asked Koppel a question: “Why did al qaida kill three thousand people on 9/11?” Koppel had no answer. Blair said, “Because they couldn’t kill thirty thousand.”

Decency cannot negotiate with bestiality. Dead al qaida are good al qaida.

Rock Does this not tell you something...... Koppel had no answer. Blair said, “Because they couldn’t kill thirty thousand.” as we could kill 100,000 and only find a new 100,000 to replace them......in the end we will both have to talk....weather its now or later does not matter.....as they will happen in the end.

by ROB Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:48 am

Stox,

Quick answer. The war on terror has a very specific goal; the survival of decency on our planet. I posted this for a reason:

"Decency cannot negotiate with bestiality. Dead al qaida are good al qaida."

It's true that more al qaida are born every day, destined through lifelong mind manipulation to become adult terrorist beasts bent on the destruction of Western civilization. Notice the name of the Hausa Islamafascist arm:

"Boko Haram has carried out increasingly sophisticated and bloody attacks in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across Nigeria, a multiethnic nation of more than 160 million people."

"Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sacrilege" in the local Hausa language, is responsible for at least 510 killings last year alone..."

Post on this thread: https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t304-can-the-war-on-terror-be-won#7901

The name tells the story.

The lesson is that von Clausewitz's principles are applicable only to an extent in the war on terror. Decency is eternally at war with bestiality; to cease seeking and destroying beasts is to give the world over to bestiality.

by witchfinder Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:23 pm

When attempting to negotiate peace, or trying to find a solution to a conflict, both parties must start off with a genuine desire to compromise.

In the case of Israel versus the occupied / captured territories, it seems that Israel is willing to talk to the Palestinians whilst at the same time continuing to build Israeli towns in the disputed lands - this appears to say that in reality we are not interested in attempting to compromise or find peace.

In the case of Northern Ireland for example, both sides made compromises.
Last week I read an article in The Guardian that Gerry Adams is considering whether to accept an invitation and meet The Queen, apparently Mr Adams acknowledged that The Queen had visited the republic and had stood in a dignified and respectful way at the memorial to those Irish republicans who lost their lives fighting for independence.

After reading the above mentioned article in The Guardian, I thought to myself how things have changed in 20 years, at one point not so long ago it would have been considered impossible for Mr Adams to meet The Queen, or indeed for the monarch to visit Dublin.

God blesss Mo Molam - may she rest in peace

by **astradt1** Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:13 pm

Quick answer. The war on terror has a very specific goal; the survival of decency on our planet.

But how's version of decency?

Remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter...........

Most countries of the world have come about in their present form as a result of terrorism.....

by Shirina Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:34 pm

Remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter...........

I don't think this really applies in this case. It's difficult, for instance, to imagine Hitler and his Brownshirts as noble warriors fighting to be free of democratic tyranny during the mid-1930's. I would not classify his Beer Hall Putsch as an uprising against oppression.

In the same vein, Islamic terrorism is not about fighting to oppose oppression ... but to impose it. These are radical groups who would love nothing more than to create an Islamic empire so rigid in its dogma as to make the laws in Saudi Arabia seem insanely liberal by comparison. These are not people to be admired ... and one does not need to capture civilians and saw their heads off with a dull blade to win freedom (or their idea of it). Before anyone can label a group freedom fighters or terrorists, one first has to determine what, exactly, they are fighting for. I do not consider any group that fights for an oppressive, misogynistic theocracy (with them ultimately in charge, of course) to be worthy of the title "Freedom Fighter" - except in the most literal sense: They are fighting freedom.

by **astradt1** Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:10 pm

Were the IRA Freedom Fighters?......What freedom were they fighting for

Some would say that Islamic Terrorists are fighting for the FREEDOM to practice their own brand of Religion in their OWN COUNTRY and against the oppression of Muslims by the West.........

by Shirina Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:26 pm

Some would say that Islamic Terrorists are fighting for the FREEDOM to practice their own brand of Religion in their OWN COUNTRY and against the oppression of Muslims by the West.........

Fighting for the freedom to take away the freedoms of others is not fighting for freedom. It's fighting for power and dominance.

The majority of terrorist attacks waged by these radicals are not against the West but against their fellow Muslims. In most nations, there are no laws that prohibit the practice of any of the various sects of Islam. The reason why they fight is because they want their particular flavor of Islam to dominate - in much the same way terrorism between Catholics and Protestants occur in the West. They are not oppressed or prevented from worshiping. They just want to rule. So often we apply the term "ethnic" cleansing, but in reality, it is "religious sect" cleansing. As I said, these aren't freedom fighters trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. They, themselves, are wannabe tyrants who blow up women and children to scare people into letting them take charge - do this or else more will die!

As I said, one must analyze what is being fought for; the mere fact that they fight does not grant them the status of underdog hero.

by ROB Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:31 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Quick answer. The war on terror has a very specific goal; the survival of decency on our planet.

astradt1 wrote:
But how's version of decency?

The version of decency shared by women and men of decency throughout the world.

astradt1 wrote:
Remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter...........

One man’s Islamafascist terrorist is a decent man’s beast.

astradt1 wrote:
Most countries of the world have come about in their present form as a result of terrorism.....

Documentation? “Most” means “greater than fifty percent.”

astradt1 wrote:
Were the IRA Freedom Fighters?......What freedom were they fighting for

The IRA terrorists were not Islamafascists.

astradt1 wrote:
Some would say that Islamic Terrorists are fighting for the FREEDOM to practice their own brand of Religion in their OWN COUNTRY and against the oppression of Muslims by the West.........

Decent folks throughout the world know that Islamafascist terrorist beasts seek to destroy Western civilization and remove from existence all Westerners, all non-Muslims, and all Muslims of whom they do not approve.

Islamafascist terrorist beasts seek to remove from existence every registered member of Cutting Edge.

by **astradt1** Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:00 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter...........

One man’s Islamafascist terrorist is a decent man’s beast.

Such a pity you only concentrate on Islamic terrorist .......This thread is about THE WAR ON TERRORISM not the war on islamic terrorism.......

astradt1 wrote:
Most countries of the world have come about in their present form as a result of terrorism.....

Documentation? “Most” means “greater than fifty percent.”

Lets look at most of the states in Europe for a start they each threw of the 'yoke' of Roman oppression and this would have started with acts of terrorism. Even the good ol' USA and Israel were founded following acts of terrorism.......you may like to call it wars of independence but they were terrorist who eventually gained control of their country...

Remember the USA kept calling those who fought against them in Iraq as insurgants when many were in fact Iraqies who did not agree with the USA invading their country...

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:11 am

while i agree on much that has been said by many members. I just still cannot see who this war on terrorism can be won by force of arms.

by ROB Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:10 am

Stox,

Camp David, circa 1979-1980, Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachim Begin negotiate a peace treaty. The State of Israel was born in 1948; as it was being birthed, Egypt attacked; as the Camp David accords were being announced, although conflict had not been continuous, a de facto state of war had existed between Egypt and Israel for just over three decades.

As of 29 January 2012, a state of peace, often "uneasy" peace, but peace nonetheless, has existed between Egypt and Israel foe more than three decades, just over half the lifetime of the modern State of Israel, which will celebrate its 64th birthday in a few months.

How did such a sea change in the relations between these two states come about? Anwar Sadat decided that he no longer wished to drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea and eradicate all Jews from its lands. Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and told the Knesset face to face that he wanted peace between the two nations.

I neglected to mention this man as being amongst my personal list of greatest heroes of the 2-th Century, and I now correct the error. For his dedication to decency, President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamafascists within the ranks of Egypt's security forces. Anwar Sadat was a hero of the 20th century, a man who didn't wait until he was perfect to do what he needed to do.

Sadat pointed the way to the path by walking the path, choosing to do so, in Churchill's words, "if necessary, alone." Unfortunately, so far, President Anwar Sadat remains alone among Arab nations' leadership.

The eternal war on evil, of which the current war on Islamafascist terrorism is but the latest manifestation, is won by eternal vigilance backed by eternal readiness to seek and destroy evil by any means necessary.

by witchfinder Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:53 pm

The war on terror cannot ever be won by force, not by any great power, not by aircraft or by gun power, the war on terror can only be won by winning the hearts and minds of millions of people from North Africa to South East Asia.

It was announced today that President Karzai is going to hold talks with Taliban in the coming weeks, probably in Saudi Arabia, anything that could lead to a lasting peace in Afghanistan can only be good.

by Stox 16 Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:31 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

Camp David, circa 1979-1980, Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachim Begin negotiate a peace treaty. The State of Israel was born in 1948; as it was being birthed, Egypt attacked; as the Camp David accords were being announced, although conflict had not been continuous, a de facto state of war had existed between Egypt and Israel for just over three decades.

As of 29 January 2012, a state of peace, often "uneasy" peace, but peace nonetheless, has existed between Egypt and Israel foe more than three decades, just over half the lifetime of the modern State of Israel, which will celebrate its 64th birthday in a few months.

How did such a sea change in the relations between these two states come about? Anwar Sadat decided that he no longer wished to drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea and eradicate all Jews from its lands. Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and told the Knesset face to face that he wanted peace between the two nations.

I neglected to mention this man as being amongst my personal list of greatest heroes of the 2-th Century, and I now correct the error. For his dedication to decency, President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamafascists within the ranks of Egypt's security forces. Anwar Sadat was a hero of the 20th century, a man who didn't wait until he was perfect to do what he needed to do.

Sadat pointed the way to the path by walking the path, choosing to do so, in Churchill's words, "if necessary, alone." Unfortunately, so far, President Anwar Sadat remains alone among Arab nations' leadership.

The eternal war on evil, of which the current war on Islamafascist terrorism is but the latest manifestation, is won by eternal vigilance backed by eternal readiness to seek and destroy evil by any means necessary.

I can agree Rock in part with President Anwar Sadat, but remember he did try to win at first by arms and failed. But believe Witchy is right in the long run in what he says.... terror can only be won by winning the hearts and minds of millions of people from North Africa to South East Asia.

by witchfinder Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:29 am

The fact remains that allthough Anwar Sadat negotiated a peace agreement with Israel, it did not have the backing or support of the people of Egypt, and even today it still dosent.

The "middle east problem" is rather like a wound, you can bandage it over in order that its not visible, but underneath its still there festering away.

No matter how many Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian or Syrian leaders sign peace accords with Israel, they will never have the backing or support of the people, and thats a realy big problem.

Israel knows what it has to do do win REAL peace

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:11 am

The "Terrorist" is just a Politician who has abandoned dialogue in favour of the gun.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:52 pm

witchfinder wrote:The fact remains that allthough Anwar Sadat negotiated a peace agreement with Israel, it did not have the backing or support of the people of Egypt, and even today it still dosent.

The "middle east problem" is rather like a wound, you can bandage it over in order that its not visible, but underneath its still there festering away.

No matter how many Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian or Syrian leaders sign peace accords with Israel, they will never have the backing or support of the people, and thats a realy big problem.

Israel knows what it has to do do win REAL peace

Aye - disappear and make way for a non-racist democracy.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:55 pm

That's a problem solved then.

Next !!

by Penderyn Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:01 pm

oftenwrong wrote:That's a problem solved then.

Next !!

All the nazis go to America where they belong, all the excluded Palestinians come home, all the talents of these two impressive peoples get united on making it the most civilized state on earth for decency, democracy and free thought. We forget about this dreary filth and celebrate a victory for humanity!

by ROB Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:24 pm

Stox 16 wrote:
I can agree Rock in part with President Anwar Sadat, but remember he did try to win at first by arms and failed.

Neither Anwar Sadat nor RockOnBrother had/has access to a time machine. If President Sadat and I were to discover such a device together, I would request of him the privilege of using it first to o back and correct some horrendous things that I have done.

The point is this: “Could you beloved?” Robert Nesta Marley wrote those words that put forth this Biblical principle better than I could ever do using my own words.

God loves us where we are, nor where we were. We’ve all got skeletons in our closets. Unlike as with most people, including me, Anwar Sadat’s skeletons were visible to the world because Anwar Sadat was visible to the world.

That’s what makes President Anwar Sadat a hero. He didn’t wait until he was perfect to do what he knew he had to do; he didn’t wait until he was perfect to do what was right. He humbled himself in the eyes of man and God, and his Maker lifted that noble man to heights to which he could not have lifted himself.

Because of President Anwar Sadat, two nations that ere at war for more than three decades have now been at peace for more than three decades, the latter period exceeding the former period by maybe a year.

I saluted President Anwar Sadat then: I salute President Anwar Sadat now.

Stox 16 wrote:
…terror can only be won by winning the hearts and minds of millions of people from North Africa to South East Asia.

There is an excellent Smithsonian Channel series, “Islam and the West”, which has provided me with a keener insight as to why his goal is unachievable from North Africa to the Philippines and Indonesia. There was a conflict between Islamic scholars and pseudo-Islamic rabble rousers in places like Damascus and Baghdad before the turn of the 2nd Millennium.

The influence of these pseudo-Muslims, these pretenders, reaches into the 3rd Millennium via such beasts as the one tracked down by the Bush and Obama administrations for almost ten years and finally brought to justice May 2011 in a compound in Pakistan.

People that are so brainwashed that they would celebrate the extermination of three thousand innocent human souls as they watched the heinous acts on worldwide television have put their hearts and minds beyond the reach decency. That’s why such people “saluted” President Anwar Sadat by shooting him down in front of the world.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:36 pm

.... or to put it another way, in any Community there will be people with differing opinions.

by True Blue Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:41 am

On man's terrorism is another man's just cause.

by Sponsored content