Where do we stand on the "War on Terror" in 2013?

1. 79

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   I hate that term, but didn't quite know how to phrase it better.
   
   Obviously, there have been a LOT of incidents and investigations in the last few
   months that have raised terrorists and US security to new levels of scrutiny.
   
   So my questions:
   Using 9/11 as baseline, how have "terrorism" and/or "terrorists" changed?
   Are we safer, less safe, or no change since 9/11?
   What US actions have helped vs. hurt us?
   
   If you were in charge of US national security, what would you do to
   protect US citizens?
   
   As always, non-US hubbers welcome to share about your own country and/or
   observations on US....
   MM

   replyreport
   1. 80

      HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Truthfully, and I'll probably get slammed for this; I'd encourage dialogue.
      
      In the end, when wars are fought in this way, refusing to talk to terrorists leads to, well, more of the same.
      
      And when attempting to view us (the Uk and Us through the eyes of the "enemy") we are terrorists too!
      
      Negotiation is the key, IMHO, and the west should learn to mind their own business, that's how they'll keep us safe.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Hollie.
         So good to see you. It's been awhile.
         I'm shocked at your position. Shocked I say!
         I thought you were a fellow female war-mongering interventionist.
         
         MM

         replyreport
         1. 80

            HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hi MM

            replyreport
      2. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Negotiation hasn't worked.
         We should've stuck to Bush's determination to NOT negotiate with terrorists.
         Good grief!-------if handing out welfare, college tuition, and the red carpet to the likes of the Boston bombers didn't make them see that America is full of tolerant loving helpful people,  then negotiation won't cure their hatred for us.    What do you expect us to do-------set them down and say see how much we welcome you, now please don't bomb us?
         
         
         So....where we stand is this-------the terrorists have now invaded not just our shores but inland, sleeper terrorists who use our good will and our money and our laws (and the stupidity of the current Administration) to condemn us and kill us on our own turf.    And Obama gives them the same legal recourse as a valid American citizen gets, taking away the Military's ability to defend us on our own soil. That's where we stand.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Non-negotation= invasion, then?

            replyreport
      3. 89

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         So killing innocents to get someone to pay attention is a legitimate path to negotiations - in your view?
         
         Or would you prefer a clarification that you meant dissidents, not terrorists?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            So killing innocents to get someone to pay attention is a legitimate path to negotiations - in your view?
            
            It's not helpful to put words into someone's mouth, I have no idea where you plucked the "killing innocents to get someone to pay attention is a legitimate path" idea, perhaps you were replying to someone else?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Isn't that what terrorists do?
               
               ... In the end, when wars are fought in this way, refusing to talk to terrorists leads to, well, more of the same.
               ......... Negotiation is the key, IMHO, and the west should learn to mind their own business, that's how they'll keep us safe.
               
               Weren't you advocating negotiating with terrorists?
               
               My apologies if I misunderstood your words, but that's how it read to me.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I was advocating for negotiations- not killing innocents, I have no idea how you might find my being in favour of negotiations to end a conflict, the same as advocating for the killing of innocents.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     So... terrorists kill innocents, (generally speaking), to get attention for their "cause"
                     
                     That is the path of action they take.
                     
                     I did not say you advocated killing innocents - I implied you advocated negotiations with those that did. Which you confirmed.
                     
                     Which also seems to imply that for you - "the end justifies the means"
                     
                     Which is confusing.. aren't you against water boarding? Drone attacks?  etc.
                     
                     I am hesitant to make the leap that your statements infer, but it could appear that for you - judgement of actions depends on who is taking them.
                     
                     I pondered that you may have meant "dissidents" instead of terrorists, but you stick with terrorists.
                     
                     So it appears you think someone that kills innocents should be negotiated with.
                     
                     Do I still misunderstand your intent?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        So... terrorists kill innocents, (generally speaking), to get attention for their "cause"
                        
                        Yes they do, on that we can agree. Both Islamic countries and western nations do it  ALL. THE. TIME. The difference is, you appear to think that when the US does it, it's justified. It was not intended, a terrible mistake. So that's ok, then!
                        
                        You state you would negotiate with them.
                        
                        Hence, "killing innocent people as a path to negotiations."
                        
                        No, now you're making yourself look quite silly, I'm afraid. The point is, "negotiations might be a path" to avoiding the massacre of innocent people. See that, do you get that?
                        
                        Or, we could have it your way, let's do what we've always done and we will get what we've always got; the killing of innocents!
                        
                        So it appears that you would still rather  travel down a failed path, and innocent lives are not worth negotiation?
                        
                        Do I still misunderstand your intent?

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           No, you do not misunderstand my intent.
                           
                           I would not negotiate with terrorists. That would be rewarding them for their actions.
                           
                           I would treat them as others; a lot wiser than I, do...
                           
                           "The point is, "negotiations might be a path" to avoiding the massacre of innocent people. See that, do you get that?"
                           
                           Yes, but what I get is that your perspective is one I am glad not to maintain.
                           
                           And I also get that understanding this to be your perspective leaves us at loggerheads. I'll keep my perspective, you keep yours.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              No, you do not misunderstand my intent.
                              
                              I would not negotiate with terrorists. That would be rewarding them for their actions.
                              
                              I would treat them as others; a lot wiser than I, do...
                              
                              So, you would rather travel down a failed path. The lives of innocents are not worth negotiation because of your "opinion"

                              replyreport
      4. 96

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Negotiation is a problem when both sides have non-negotiable demands.  We demand, for instance, that radical islamists not overrun countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria with violence to enforce their religious views.  It's not negotiable.  We also have a tendency to interfere in human rights violations; gunning down school girls, for instance, and the ugly treatment radicals give women in general.
         
         The terrorists, on the other hand,  demand that we either convert to radical Islam or cease to exist.  That, too, seems non-negotiable.  Between the two I'm not sure there is any negotiation to be done.
         
         But there is another problem, possibly worse.  Who do we negotiate with?  What person will sit at the negotiation table?  I have serious doubts that we have refused to talk - I do not believe that any terrorist has ever offered to negotiate anything, or has any reason to.  As they really only have one demand, and they know we won't meet it, there is to reason to discuss anything from their viewpoint.
         
         And that leaves the idea of minding our own business.  Should we simply stay home and allow the radicals to take over country after country, subjugating the peoples there, until they are strong enough to effectively attack the US or UK?  For they will, you know - that is their stated desire and there is no reason to doubt it.  When God speaks, people do incomprehensible things.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            That's what I was hoping to get to, Wilderness.
            As usual, very well stated.
            
            Who do we negotiate with?
            It's not like the "good old days" when countries declared actual war and wore
            identifiable uniforms in battle.
            Our enemies are not always identifiable anymore.
            How do we even choose which faction to support if we are against a dictator?
            And even if a country does adopt democracy, it may be fleeting when a new
            wave of insurgents comes in.
            The one thing we do know is, as you state.
            Radical Islamists want to destroy us. 
            I agree we cannot sit back and let them bring the fight to us.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               "How do we even choose which faction to support if we are against a dictator"
               
               That's a tough question and not one that always has an answer.  In general, I would have to say neither one - let the people fight it out themselves, just as we (mostly) did in the civil war.  Of course, the US would still be English....
               
               On the other hand, when a radical religous organization moves into a country and takes the countryside villages by storm and violence, that's another story.  The villagers don't want it, the govt. doesn't want it and it is no different, at it's roots, that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  There, I DO know which side is the right one.

               replyreport
         2. 80

            HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The terrorists, on the other hand,  demand that we either convert to radical Islam or cease to exist.  That, too, seems non-negotiable.  Between the two I'm not sure there is any negotiation to be done.
            
            I'm not sure they do demand that we all convert to radical Islam, I don't believe that this is what it's about at all. I believe our interventions in other countries (I mean, which country country in their right mind would be pleased to live under occupation?) have been the crux of the problem. The drones, bombing etc as witnessed by poor, uneducated young men, only serves to push them into the hands of extremists groups.
            
            And you mention Syria, on the part of the west, what we are doing is massively contradictory. On the one hand we are fighting terrorism in our own back yards, then funding and arming rebels in Syria who are connected to, and have loyalties to, Al-Queda . And our interventions in Syria, just like Iraq and Afghanistan, have only made matters worse.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               But they do demand we convert.  That or die, the same as every other infidel, including those infidels that claim to be Muslim but do not walk the proper path in their service to God.
               
               I disagree with your analysis of the root of the problem.  Certainly people don't want their country occupied - in most circumstances.  Citizens of Kuwait were extremely pleased to see the US military crossing their border, for instance.  But the root is that simply by existing, and in being a much more successful society in terms of wealth (money, things, food, freedom, etc.) the West is giving a lie to radical Islam and the people are recognizing that.  They are demanding what the west has, and that can ONLY be accomplished by becoming the west.  Or at least by dumping the requirements and laws of the radicals, and that is not to be tolerated.  As a conventional war with the US vs terrorists would last about 5 minutes, terrorism is the tool used to both hurt the us (and most of the west - we're not alone in being attacked) and demonstrate to their own people that God's work is being done.

               replyreport
2. 60

   Superkevposted 10 years ago

   First I would secure the border. Lock it down tight.
   
   Then send every illegal alien back to their country of origin. Every. Damn. One.
   
   Second I would let Iran know that since most of the service members we have lost in Iraq were killed by IED's that were either planned by, built by or detonated by the Republic of Iran, for every death of one of our military that we can positively trace back to their country, they will lose an installation. Might be a barracks, might be a ship, might be their General HQ, but they will lose an installation. And should they attack American soil, they will lose ALL of their installations. I would tell them in that instance I will destroy their military in 48 hours and leave them naked to their enemies for the next 500 years.
   
   I would let the leaders of other terrorist organizations know that should the US or US citizens be attacked anywhere in the world, that the retribution will be swift, massive and deadly. I have 11 Carrier Battle Groups at my disposal, dare me to use them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Rock on.
      
      And what would you do with the likes of the Fort Hood killer and the Boston bombers?
      Hopefully swift justice.   At the hands of a Military tribunal?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You would be like an angry, sociopathic child. 
      
      Oh, we had one of those already.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         At least I would not be a weak kneed, feckless, bowing, groveling Muslim appeaser who no one in the  world respects or is in the least afraid of.
         
         Got one of those now.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            PLUS the angry, sociopathic child aspect!
            Obama is muti-faceted in his shortcomings.

            replyreport
   3. 79

      Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So it's Iran's fault that Bush sent our military into Iraq?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         No, it's Iran's fault for sending people and materials that killed Americans.

         replyreport
3. 96

   wildernessposted 10 years ago

   Are we safer and have US actions helped us?  Actions like the Patriot Act?
   
   We are probably no safer, but no less, either.  Probably due to the actions taken under the Act. 
   
   I say "probably" because the man in the street will never know of the vast majority of terrorism that didn't occur because it was caught before it could.  Only a handful of people will ever know how many threats were thwarted and even fewer will have real knowledge if those threats would have been successful or not.
   
   That there are terrorists within our borders in undeniable, that they will try to kill is also undeniable.  How many and how bad the attacks might be is the only question and that will always (whenever possible; the marathon obviously went public) be kept under a tight blanket of secrecy.

   replyreport
4. 66

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   The "War on Terror" is a farce. Really want to stop terrorism? Stop paying your taxes so our governments will stop their wars of aggression that destroy civilisations and encourage terrorism. Done.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Innersmiff, you sound like a broken record. If only the world was as simplistic as your "don't pay taxes, get rid of the govt. and trust the freemarket!"

      replyreport