Can the war on terror be won?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Us poor and women are becoming invisible

Only in the Tory party boatlady.

Logically the US, UK and other alleged NATO allies should be re-invading Afghanistan.
Isn't ISIS another word for Terror Group / State?
Won't ISIS "eat" the Taliban for breakfast?
Then chomp Kabul to their own image.
Particularly as many Taliban  have moved into north Pakistan.
How will the Neo-Con shakers and movers contain this move against one of their pillars of Geo Political Strategy?
There is nobody left to invade by proxy and invasions are generally out of favour unless you live in Moscow.
Looks like the Cycle  of Wars model could be  pot on with its prediction of planet meltdown for the next five plus years.

http://www.newsweek.com/isis-have-made-their-move-afghanistan-says-army-general-299085

Isn't the clue in the name? "Terrorism" is a method of making war, not a cause for which wars are fought. Terror cannot therefore be an "enemy" in the sense that you can make war on it. It is like trying to make war on "infantry" or "aeroplanes" or "commandoes." This isn't just semantics. You can't win a war you can't fight.

Well what do you think?

Following months of barbarianism carried out by this group of fanatics, even the world powers bombing does not seem to have had any affect on their brutality, and with their most recent video of the burning of the Jordanian pilot. What should the world powers do to put an end to it?

What should the world powers do to put an end to it?

To begin with, "world powers" have to agree upon a common cause. Routinely whatever "The West" propose will be opposed in the United Nations by Russia and/or China.

The specific question of the topic heading is obscured by religion, so it may seem logical to leave the required activity to established Muslim countries through their existing organisations such as the Arab League and The Organization of African Unity (OAU; French: Organisation de l'unité africaine (OUA)).

Or we could learn from the peace-keeping experiences of the western powers in Korea, Palestine, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and similar adventure playgrounds.

I just don't know.It seems to me that the ISIS atrocities are a form of psychological warfare - they seem determined to force other bodies to engage with brutality - recent example is the burning of the Jordanian pilot  - a horrible act - which led to the hanging in Jordan of two prisoners - as revenge.

Beheading and burning alive your 'enemies' is highly objectionable - governments killing helpless prisoners 'in revenge' - what's that about? - to me, seems a worse crime in a sense.

ISIS seem to delight in forcing governments to engage with acts of brutality - very nihilistic.
I'm not sure anyone's really looked seriously at what their ultimate goal might be - obviously not a 'caliphate' - whatever they mean by that

Relying on the Arab League would seem to be a non-starter as some member states have been sited as initial supporters of ISIS........
Why is it seen as World Powers only means Western Powers why are discussions not including Russia and China? Granted the west seems intent in alienating Russia over the Ukraine but ISIS, IMHO, present a much greater threat to a greater number of people.....
Yes Jordan executed two prisoners, one of whom had been under sentence of death for the past 10 years for her part in a failed suicide bomb attack....

Can the war on terror be won? What can the world powers do about ISIS? Not exactly easy questions, are they?

It would seem that most religions have their fundamentalists. We hear instances from the USA of so-called Christians murdering doctors who perform abortions, and there was one politician (Republican, of course) who wanted the death penalty for teenagers who are rude to their parents. If you cherry pick the Old Testament you could probably find a justification for plenty of atrocities; for example, in Deuteronomy (22:13-21) it says that if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he should stone her to death on her father’s doorstep. Since Christians, Jews and Muslims all use the Old Testament in the promulgation of their faiths, should we be surprised if some adherents to Islamic fundamentalism carry out some of the instructions in both that book and the Quran?

Defeating an idea is all but impossible. The Romans thought they could wipe out Christianity by killing Christians; in the end, they decided to institutionalise it. We can’t get rid of Islamic fundamentalism, because some Muslims who read those ancient texts will take them literally, especially if they’ve had no formal education or if their schooling has consisted of learning every word of the Quran in a madrasa. What world powers can do is to avoid fanning the flames. Whilst the right of Israel to exist must be recognised, the actions of Netanyahu’s government against Gaza cannot be defended. Every bomb dropped, every Palestinian child killed, probably radicalises some more people to fight for ISIS.

Maybe the first thing to find out is what exactly ISIS is and what it wants. One of the few hostages to have been released by ISIS, a French journalist, says that the terrorists weren’t that interested in religion:-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-hostage-says-terror-group-doesnt-care-about-islam-didnt-even-have-a-quran-133596/

So maybe ISIS is essentially a political organisation using Islam to recruit followers? If so, perhaps it can be defeated militarily, but that would needs troops on the ground, not just air strikes. Or would it be better to go after those who finance ISIS, who are believed to be rich individuals in the Gulf, especially Qataris?
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

The native Indians in the USA weren’t beaten by the army, we all know what happened to Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. They were defeated because hunters destroyed the buffalo herds which provided them with food, clothes and even the raw material for their homes. It might also be more effective if the world powers could ‘starve’ ISIS of its resources rather than rely on what is currently a half-hearted military solution of air strikes. But as I said, this is not exactly an easy question to try and answer.

Patrick Cockburn is Iraq correspondent on The Independent, and says that the emergence of ISIS is entirely our own fault, in a book titled The Rise of Islamic State. [I]Publ: Verso, pp 192, £9.99 and as an e-book.)

As I have not read the book, I have not placed this posting in the reviews section. (The synopsis alone is complex enough!)

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/10/book-review-cockburns-the-rise-of-islamic-state/

In his book, quoted in the previous post, Patrick Cockburn wrote: “ISIS has been able to exploit the growing sense of alienation and persecution among the Sunni in Iraq”. That point was reinforced by one of the more enlightened Tory MPs, Rory Stewart, on the ‘Sunday Politics’ programme (08.02.15). He explained how the Sunnis in Iraq had lost their power with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his replacement with a very partisan Shia-dominated government and militia. In effect, that drove many Sunnis into the arms of ISIS.

Here we have some thoughts on ISIS and Islamic militancy by Jason Burke:-

Terrorise, mobilise, polarise: ISIS follows the age-old strategy of rulers

Every conflict has its signature tactic or weapon. The First World War had the trenches, in Vietnam it was the helicopter. For the conflicts of the decade that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was the suicide attack. The signature tactic of this new phase of Islamic militancy and the war against it is still unclear, but there is one obvious candidate: the ‘execution-style’ murder.

The great difference between this phase of militancy and the last one is that most of the groups operating around the world today prioritise seizing territory rather than opting for a strategy of “propaganda of the deed” designed to instigate violence and thus radicalise tens of millions of Muslims. Suicide bombings are used tactically for local aims, such as facilitating the seizure of a town or to undermine the morale of government troops, rather than strategically against distant western ones.

So where does it end? A horrific logic of escalation drove progressively larger mass casualty attacks on symbolic targets in the 1990s until 9/11. In the next decade, such strikes proved counter-productive, sapping support for al-Qaida and its offshoots. It is unlikely that horrific acts such as the public murder of Muadh al-Kasasbeh will do much to bolster the legitimacy or popularity of ISIS anywhere. But it took a decade before al-Qaida was marginalised and it may take as long before the wave of energy ISIS has sent coursing through the Islamic extremist movement is reversed. In the meantime, the killings will continue.

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/08/murder-in-public-isis-signature

This makes disturbing reading, but I think the author may be right - once committed to a populist movement it seems to take people a very long time to reverse their views. In the chaos of the Middle East, a strong voice must seem very appealing, even if what it is saying is against most people's ideas of decency.

Another example that comes to my mind is the case of UKIP in England - even though there are daily reports of racism, criminal activity, stupidity and otherwise unacceptable behaviour from UKIP representatives, and their friends in EDL and BNP, supporters continue to believe that saying 'I'm backing Nigel' constitutes a valid political opinion.

The one-man political movement which is UKIP takes care to address the natural fears of humans, from Agoraphobia all the way through to Xenophobia.

Basic, bogey-man stuff. Bound to get a reaction from the unthinking.

So true - human nature is overlooked at our peril - and it's not only men that can't admit it when they're wrong.

I guess those young men join ISIS both out of a sense of wanting to do the right thing, but also wanting to seem strong and macho - coming home and admitting they were wrong must seem very hard - and I guess if you're there you have to take part in the violence or risk being a victim yourself.

Eventually, I suppose they'll all either be killed or the loss of popular support will encourage them to go home

To win the war on terror has many means to the end. if you were to remove their funding, which comes from drug dealing, then there would be a way forwards. if you were to reach out to the people that want to join isis and show them they too will be dealing drugs to support themselves, wait, actually, this is against the law! if the people were to throw these people in jail, then it would be sorted.

So, if there is a way to beat these 'people,' they need to simply shoot them you say? fighting fire with fire works, but putting a fire out will work better. if the people that remain in isis were to look around them, when will they stop running? do the people accept them without their guns? when will they die, how will they die, is this the right way? why are so few doing the right thing - they are not afraid, are they?

Now, to stop isis dead in their tracks , they could not sell them oil. if they were to deny them this service, then they would be paralyzed. if the state was to order the stations they use not to sell to them, empty them, they will go to other ones. this means they need police at the petrol stations, or, even more cunningly, they could make it an underground affair. hell, the state could ban cars and only use buses and taxis in this sort of situation!

oftenwrong wrote:The one-man political movement which is UKIP takes care to address the natural fears of humans, from Agoraphobia all the way through to Xenophobia.

Basic, bogey-man stuff.  Bound to get a reaction from the unthinking.

Why is bobby peeing on you? seems rude! just saying hey, i remember you man!

Hello again from a cold climate. Britain has suffered five years of what sometimes feels like the invasion of a foreign Army, and some people are fearful of another five years of the same oppression. But commonsense must surely prevail at the General Election in May.

I can't remember now where I read it, but someone on the zeitgeist commented that most disagreements and misunderstandings arise from emotion, not reason.

Please, let us be invaded by an extra-terrestrial race that conducts its affairs according to reason and logic

The only reason there has not been a 3rd world war is because of fear, nuclear fear.

From within a family circle you can have every kind of conflict, the same applies to a village and in any American city you will have anything from petty crime to murder and all in between on a daily basis., so mankind is prone to conflict.

The present world situation could be resolved if the great powers worked together and set about either forcing those involved to sort themselves out or destroying them.

The fact is that it suits one to let them get on with it for one reason and another for another reason, be it oil, territory or the supply of armaments etc;

The fact is that mankind never has nor or never will devise a means of self government that satifies all concerned.

To answer the question, where there is a will there is a way, the problem is finding it.

For further consideration;-

Ignorance
All the predudices
Colour
Religion
Sexuality
Greed
Jealousy
Nationalism
Fear
Anger
Frustaration
Pride
Mental illness
Envy etc;

You then have numerous reasons why we have a problem.

It has and still does strike me as very 'ODD' how those that refused: Germany/China/Russia/France to support the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan - to oust the very terrorist sect that was hiding Osama Ben Laden; and now those same mind set have changed their flag and terrorist name from Al Qaida to Talban to ISIS and have ramped up their methods of terror and attacks.

France stands behind its refusal to participate in the coalition that sent more than one million soldiers, mainly Americans, to fight on Iraqi soil.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/iraq-war-france_n_2901205.html

It strikes me as rather interesting that while the nations involved in the 2003 invasion: 

2003 invasion of Iraq—codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom"—and much of the ensuing Iraq War, led by the United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland, responsible for conducting and handling military operations. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq 

That the very stance that awarded France the 'it's not our war and we want no part of it' ~~~  

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin’s speech at the UN marking France’s refusal to support the war in the Middle East gained rare national consensus and was applauded from one end of the French political spectrum to the other. It remains today a benchmark speech in international politics.

The TERRORIST came calling in the form of the PARIS Bombings - death & destruction. 

In retrospect if we {so many nations} hadn't stood up to the Evil of Hitler then that huge land grab under his domain would still be 'Anti Jewish' and all colored the same shade of Germany's National Nazi Flag? 
Why is it so hard to be a united global front against terrorism in this the 21st century!    Have we made our United Nations nothing more then something similar to the 'Red Cross' and all they do is supply aide?

Ivan wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ9wKC3WEAAOk0a.jpg

I've clipped this image of yours to stash it away with some of my other favorites...this is another one that I've used quite often > > >



https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/995342_10153574559351275_4151289090001704439_n.jpg?oh=23fafa538e4eec3f23b82757a453de90&oe=5793F7D0

The TERRORIST came calling in the form of the PARIS Bombings - death & destruction.

Why France has become a prime target for terrorists

Extracts from an article by Pamela Engel:-

Under President Hollande, France launched its first airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria last September. The country is also a closer and more opportunistic target for extremist groups than the USA. Witnesses at the Bataclan said the gunmen shouted in French: "This is because of all the harm done by Hollande to Muslims all over the world", according to ‘The New York Times’. Another witness confirmed this to CNN, saying the attacker who shouted that statement sounded like a native French speaker. Will McCants, an expert on extremism and author of the recent book ‘The ISIS Apocalypse’, said that the attack could have been a pointed warning to France to cease strikes in Syria.

ISIS — aka the Islamic State or ISIL — called Paris "the capital of prostitution and vice" in a statement claiming responsibility for the attacks last year.

Paris might also be a more fruitful recruiting ground for ISIS than cities in some other Western countries.
Tensions surrounding France's Muslim community have long been simmering, as George Packer, a foreign correspondent for ‘The New Yorker’, chronicled in an article. The piece, ‘The Other France’, wondered whether Paris suburbs are an "incubator for terrorism". Packer wrote: "France has all kinds of suburbs, but the word for them, banlieues, has become pejorative, meaning slums dominated by immigrants".

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-france-become-prime-target-202120346.html

While I won't dispute that 'location - location - location' seemed the method for some practice sessions & attacks from the terrorist group of ISIS...I {from my limited POV} really thought it was geographically decided by the 'large & in charge head terrorist' that due to the slander being published by the 'Charlie Hebdo' was the #1 reason that Paris was chosen as a hard target.




Do I assume to much by what this cartoonist was generating --- we don't get to hear and see much international news since our POTUS elections process has gone 'Circus Train Mantra' --- it's all we get fed 24/7.

"The War on Terror" is itself a sound-bite construct of the Dubbya Bush neo-cons, busily trying to justify a war against the wrong target.

If you want to understand the origins of our current discomfort, it is only necessary to read about the Colonial ambitions of XIXth century aggressive and acquisitive European nations.

The birds are coming home to roost.

Oh how I agree with that. Saw this today and thought how true it was:




So many times, the only lives that seem to be important are those of Europeans. When you think of the number of civilians that have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine etc etc, but they don't seem to count.

Has there ever been a 'total' military victory over a protracted Terror 'war'?.................Look at the many groups which have waged terror campaigns against governments which have only been resolved negotiation and even then a smaller group has broken away from those carrying out the negotiations to carry out a smaller scale campaign........

Well that is exactly the problem...while a few can remain blaming GWB for his fiasco of dealing with the Al Quaida turned to Taliban turned into ISIS then lay the blame game to our current president Obama ...mean while how does anyone wipe out a evil IDEOLOGY.
Seems the radical method of the 'skinheads' and NAZI hate groups that still exist {right here in America} is clearly a prime example of how it's never a successful task ...eradication of a EVIL IDEA

Part of the problem is explained by a very old adage, "The Devil finds work for idle hands."
All over the world, young people are increasingly finding it difficult to find gainful employment, as the Capitalist system diminishes the value of labour.

Trapped in a ghetto, it's hardly surprising that young men find an outlet for their energies in the focussed violence offered by jehadi organisations.

oftenwrong wrote:Trapped in a ghetto, it's hardly surprising that young men find an outlet for their energies in the focussed violence offered by jehadi organisations.

Lots of TRUTH, in those words to be sure. 

Nothing motivates the impoverished quicker to become a 'soldier' for any faction then hunger and need; enter the local terrorist organization with the offer of a wage/clothing and food and you've got the means for another warm body for the cause! 
And if economic persuasion doesn't work there's the ole' standby - fear and intimidation; kidnap a family member {baby/child/mother/granny} hold them hostage and that soon makes the human fall in line rapidly.

Aspca4ever wrote:-
those same mind set have changed their flag and terrorist name from Al Qaida to Taliban to ISIS

I think it’s a little more complicated than that. Your order is correct – al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in 1988, the Taliban movement originated in the early 1990s, while ISIS emerged much more recently - and of course all of them are fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, but they are not entirely synonymous.

When the Taliban held power in Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, it provided a base for al-Qaeda, which in turn trained an elite part of the Taliban’s army. However, some sources have said that by the end of 2008, the Taliban had severed any remaining links with al-Qaeda.

ISIS, with its aim of creating a caliphate across Iraq, Syria and beyond, started out as an al-Qaeda splinter group. But in February 2014, al-Qaeda renounced its ties to ISIS following months of infighting. And just to complicate matters a little further, there is Boko Haram, a Nigeria-based radical Islamic group, which pledged allegiance to ISIS in March 2015, while al-Shabab, which is fighting for the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia, is linked to al-Qaeda.

Ivan stated > > > I think it’s a little more complicated than that. Your order is correct – al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in 1988, the Taliban movement originated in the early 1990s, while ISIS emerged much more recently - and of course all of them are fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, but they are not entirely synonymous.

ABSOLUTELY...and given the age and mentality of the posters involved in the thread...I was assuming that having a firm grasp of the past 15+ years and my countries involvement; well, that there wasn't any need to keep regurgitating the data. 

I enjoy the conversations but the continual need to refresh members memories have always seemed a redundant waste of bandwidth {not wrapping your knuckles Ivan} just making a point about some other political sights that seem to have humans SOS that can't remain updated with the flow of the thread.

IMO - given the widespread and ability to operate their recruitment on such a global scale; ISIS has pulled the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of the stone age and into the 21st century...not only with their internet access but for their financial wheeling's & dealings as well. Osama ben Laden might have descended from a wealthy family but his juvenile internet savvy was light-year's from what the age group that is pushing the ISIS terrorist organization forward. 

Warring factions will be has fluid as the clothing/flag that they march under; given that many of the ISIS are kidnapped/captured/stolen and remain just a loyal as the nearest gun pointed at their backs --- ISIS is finding enticements and loyalty and issue for their purpose --- I see more female bombers in their future evil deeds too!

A debate in writing can never have the immediacy of face-to-face conversation, as most significant is the absence of what's called body-language. If my listener shows blank imcomprehension of something I've just said, there is the opportunity to either expand or repeat an earlier comment.

I have no idea how my electronic pearls of wisdom may be received by the waiting millions on Cutting Edge until someone responds in writing. (Or nobody does).

I think it was Hugh Cudlipp, sometime editor of The Daily Mirror, who once said something along the lines of, never underestimate the sheer incomprehension of the average reader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cnb5t

OftenWrong stated > A debate in writing can never have the immediacy of face-to-face conversation, as most significant is the absence of what's called body-language. If my listener shows blank imcomprehension of something I've just said, there is the opportunity to either expand or repeat an earlier comment.

True...but then again on the PLUS SIDE of this 'INTERNET vs Face-to-Face' is the ability to actually read what the other person is typing without that craving NEED that some humans have to keep interrupting the speaker with their pearls of feeble wisdom!    
More often then not people chose {willfully} NOT to listen to what is being said but start formulating a rejoinder and interrupting the speaker before the speaker even gets though his entire thought! 

NOW THAT IS A HUGE PET PEEVE OF MINE~~~
Drummed into my mind from an early age; fathers famous words ...'you can't be listening with both ears and your mind if your mouth is open and you're wanting to interrupt my words'...

How different PMQs might be if conducted in writing!

But less fun.

oftenwrong wrote:How different PMQs might be if conducted in writing!

But less fun.

And I missed stating an 'OBVIOUS' issue; there are often humans on any given community forum that just find it too hard - too much trouble - or they're so SOS that reading is just too much mental work...

They can't/won't read the entire thread/jump in part way/don't read a long post and then 'WHINE' about being ignored or chastised for posting redundant BS and having members ignore them.   

I missed that on my 'pet peeve' listing!