Future Terrorism in the US?

[thabigdon24]

Al Qauida is currently a live and well but vastly different organization than what it used to be. They aren't capable of the large scale 9/11 type terrorism that they previously committed. Now it looks like a couple of guys merely strap bombs to themselves and go find a bunch of people.

After 9/11 we had Afghanistan and the undoing of the Taliban. We asked the Afghani's over and over to give us bin laden, and they refused i think they cited traditional arab customs of being hospitablle to guests. Or for whatever reason we came down, defeated the taliban and killed many many al qaeda; and reorganized the country.

Now, we are in a situation that bin laden is drooling over. We are in iraq for no apparant reason pissing the arabs off and creating many many more terrorists in the process and losing international face not to mention the arabs.

If we get out of Iraq soon i think that the afghanistan thing did the trick. People know that we will fight respond very aggressively in the future.

Anyone else have positive prospects for our homeland's security or am i just wrong?

[Vash]

I'm still put off by "homeland security." I much prefer "national security." Doesn't sound so . . . grim.

[Elkhntr1]

Were totally safe due to the Iraqi invasion. No more attacks.

[Nu_Naiy]

I really doubt that running away from a fight in Iraq is going to show our resolve to "aggressively defend ourselves." They will have less respect for us if we run away. Bin laden was the guy to call our troops "paper tigers."

It was not an Afghan custom or Arab hospitality that kept Bin laden free. It was fear, bribery, religious ties, etc. Most Afghans would have given him up in a heartbeat (why would that Afghan chief defy Bin laden by helping to save that SEAL.).

Things need to change in Iraq, in some ways, but pulling out is not, I repeat, not the answer.

[Professor_X]

Nu-Naiy wrote:
I really doubt that running away from a fight in Iraq is going to show our resolve to "aggressively defend ourselves." They will have less respect for us if we run away. Bin laden was the guy to call our troops "paper tigers."

The flaw in this line of thinking is the belief that a people who are not afraid to die "fear us" retaliating.

[Zeppelin795]

Elkhntr1 wrote:
Were totally safe due to the Iraqi invasion. No more attacks.

Is that a joke?

[Zeppelin795]

I really don't see positive prospects for the security of this country mostly due to our foreign policy. It will only get worse in terms of attacks and losses of personal freedoms. A fundamental political shift must occur due to the population at large but this seems highly unlikely considering the gross indoctrination that goes on due to media propaganda.

[thabigdon24]

Nu-Naiy wrote:
I really doubt that running away from a fight in Iraq is going to show our resolve to "aggressively defend ourselves." They will have less respect for us if we run away. Bin laden was the guy to call our troops "paper tigers."

It was not an Afghan custom or Arab hospitality that kept Bin laden free. It was fear, bribery, religious ties, etc. Most Afghans would have given him up in a heartbeat (why would that Afghan chief defy Bin laden by helping to save that SEAL.).

Things need to change in Iraq, in some ways, but pulling out is not, I repeat, not the answer.

Right, it was supposed hospitality but we asked them over and over. Sooner or later you have to make a choice between right and wrong. We made the right one in Afghanistan. In Iraq, its a different story - I hate our prescence there but i think that since we started this we need to stay in for a while longer. Think about it; we took them from having a crappy but stable country and now they have a crappier and much more unstable country. The were a lot better off w/ Saddam than w/ our " freedom " b/c the Iraqis are just like the Russians. They have to have an almost dictatorial leader leading them or they will go nuts like they are lol
My 2 cents.

[wufwugy]

well, if i were the US emporer it'd all be okay because i'd secure all borders, profile the feck outa everybody within borders, and treat every single terrorist affiliated government on the planet like Nazis.

[vroom]

TheDon,

I don't like the way you characterize Iraq. What you have there is at least three distinct population segments that have never learned to live together peacefully.

However, they were forced to live together under despotic rule.

Now, we are hoping that many years of hatred and intolerance can suddenly be undone by allowing them to cast a few votes in elections.

Things are complicated. Iraq isn't a crappy place, it is a dangerous place. Maybe it should have been allowed to split into two or three segments -- so that each segement could really focus on itself... not having to worry about how to get along with other factions.

As you did say, the US is there, and hopefully the Iraqi forces will be able to relieve them sooner rather than later. It is true that the US can't just walk out -- however I fear that no matter when the US leaves, it will be later seen as too soon when Iraqi troubles are brewing, and this won't be fair either.

I don't think attacking Iraq actually did much to make America safer. It is a great recruiting tool for the Islamofascists at the very least. I think the key to ending terrorism on a large scale is to stop creating conditions that encourage people to accept the doctrines of islamofascism.

That however is also a very complicated problem.

Using force on identified elements of state sponsored terrorism (large scale) or on camps or training centers (small scale covert ops) is one strategy. It certainly may be necessarily to kill islamofascists to stop them from attacking.

This doesn't address the recruitment problem directly though. At the current time is seems we are left to appeal to the muslim community to police themselves and end this mentality. Will this eventually work?

[Original_Demon]

vroom wrote:
Using force on identified elements of state sponsored terrorism (large scale) or on camps or training centers (small scale covert ops) is one strategy. It certainly may be necessarily to kill islamofascists to stop them from attacking.

This doesn't address the recruitment problem directly though. At the current time it seems we are left to appeal to the muslim community to police themselves and end this mentality. Will this eventually work?

Nope. However, it does keep me employed.

[redswingline]

To Vroom (not to single you out), (and others) who argue that US/UK presence in Iraq is to blame for increased terrorism; the position: if the US isn't "over there", nobody will be coming "over here"; and more specifically the London bombings, I have a few questions:

If suicide bombings are solely meant to dislodge a foreign occupation, why are so many of the current bombings in Iraq targetting not the occupiers, but Iraqi nationals?

Are the suicide bombers just bad at aiming? Do they continually fumble the on switch?

If ending "foreign" occupation is the goal, why did UK nationals attack the UK? What is the "foreign" occupation they would be trying to unseat? Themselves?

Also interesting is that there is no room in this argument (we?re there, so they?re here) for discussing the morality of a suicide attack, nor the rationality of the "rationale": the originating "foreign occupation" which motivated bin Laden was, by all accounts, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. But they weren't there as "occupiers": there were placed there during and after Gulf War I to act as a deterrent to Iraqi incursions onto Saudi soil; they were there, in other words, to protect Arab lands. But that?s the lefty view that "occupation" leads inevitably to "suicide attack".

[Testy1]

redswingline wrote:
To Vroom (not to single you out), (and others) who argue that US/UK presence in Iraq is to blame for increased terrorism; the position: if the US isn't "over there", nobody will be coming "over here"; and more specifically the London bombings, I have a few questions:

If suicide bombings are solely meant to dislodge a foreign occupation, why are so many of the current bombings in Iraq targetting not the occupiers, but Iraqi nationals?

To dissuade the Iraqi people from co-operating with the occupation forces.

Are the suicide bombers just bad at aiming? Do they continually fumble the on switch?

If ending "foreign" occupation is the goal, why did UK nationals attack the UK? What is the "foreign" occupation they would be trying to unseat? Themselves?

Although they are UK nationals, they are more importantly of Pakistani decent and Muslim religion. Pakistan is one of the most fundamentalist Muslim countries in the world. To fundamentalist, religion trumps whatever country they happen to be living in.

It is pretty clear the bombings were an attempt to force Great Britain out of Iraq.

Also interesting is that there is no room in this argument (we?re there, so they?re here) for discussing the morality of a suicide attack, nor the rationality of the "rationale": the originating "foreign occupation" which motivated bin Laden was, by all accounts, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. But they weren't there as "occupiers": there were placed there during and after Gulf War I to act as a deterrent to Iraqi incursions onto Saudi soil; they were there, in other words, to protect Arab lands. But that?s the lefty view that "occupation" leads inevitably to "suicide attack".

The US was in Saudi Arabia by invite of the House of Saud. It is well known that Bin Laden, and the majority of the general populace in Saudi Arabia have nothing but contempt for their government.

[YoungElias]

vroom wrote:
I think the key to ending terrorism on a large scale is to stop creating conditions that encourage people to accept the docrimes of islamofascism.

Yeah such as turning stable states into unstable lands. You would have thought the elite would have remembered Iran and Koumeini/Shaw under Reagan.

[vroom]

Red, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I was generally coming down on the side of using force where necessary but saying we need other strategies also.

Perhaps instead of singling me out, you should exempt me from your question since I had just crossed out of liberal terrority within the post you are attempted to call me out on?

[Marmadogg]

Statisically, you are more likely to die from falling off a ladder than dying in a terrorist attack.

T-Men don't let this stuff enter their brains.

Next.

[BostonBarrister]

Marmadogg wrote:
Statisically, you are more likely to die from falling off a ladder than dying in a terrorist attack.

T-Men don't let this stuff enter their brains.

Next.

I suppose this depends on whether you're on a ladder or living in Iraq...

[thabigdon24]

Vroom: Yes iraq is very crappy b/c it is dangerous. It could be a relatively wealthy arab nation w/ all of its oil revenues if not for the constant rebuilding and emphasis on defense and internal security ect.

[vroom]

TheDon,

What you've said is true of most Arab nations. This has been so for a long time and has nothing to do with the recent war.

The leaders of those countries have been getting wealthy, off the oil, and not necessarily sharing it with the populace.

Unfornately, it is also true that western policies have helped prop up the governments and dictators that have been doing this.

[thabigdon24]

Which western policies? The fact of the matter is that the ruling class of the arab nations wants to stay just where it is just like my boy karl marx says. They know that countries around the world will continue to buy oil and the ruling class will continue to be the beneficiaries.

If the arab nations really wanted to improve their countries; they could start by doing 2 things:

1. making them more secular in orientation. Religous fundamentalism is just plain bad especially when you have a culture that at the very least is frustrated with the outside world and wants to revert it back to the middle ages when the arabs were pretty much above everybody else culturally - better math science blah blah blah

2. Diversify the economy, giving the average guy a better job. If chinese people can work for $0.40 and they at least have a job , why not the arabs? True 0.40 / hr sucks but at least its a job and stuff is cheaper over there so begging won't be considered an occupation. Just build up the industry and once the people start realizing that they have economic power and control then mabey they won't feel so frustrated w/ their lives.