War Against Terrorism? Defending the USA

[Mich 0]

I don't understand what is meant by "the war against terrorism." Terrorism is not an army you can fight in any arena. It is calculated random acts of violence in the name of religious beliefs. The only way to fight it is to be prepared and defend yourself against it. Terrorism went on in the Holy lands long before written history and still is. If people who should be experts on the matter, by now, have not made any headway preventing it, what makes the United States think we can solve it for them? Sending our young men and women off to Iraq to fight and die seems the honorable thing to do, but seems also a waste. Offense is not the only way to win. Sometimes a good defense wins the game. Wouldn't it make more sense and be more effective use of their services to have our troops patrolling our borders here at home? It would be a more likely way to keep terrorist out of our country. It would most certainly be safer for them and not costs us all those precious lives. What do you think?

[selim 0]

A good defence is also a strong offence. But that's a different story. Terrorism isn't just to do with religious beliefs. It can be about standing up and defending something you strobgly believe in, like they say. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This makes terrorism sound not so bad, since surely helping one man can only be good. But the fact is terrorists will usually attack weak targets and so lots of innocent civilians will be killed in the process of a terrorist or group trying to make a statement.What George Bush is trying to do is to stop these terrorists at the source. Or at least that what he wants us to think. I don't have to remind you how rich in oil the middle east is.Now starting a war on a small country like Iraq surely won't go down well with the rest of the world, however starting a war on terrorism will. Everyone hates terrorism so why not.Sadly what your saying is right, terrorism isn't a physical army that can be fought or defeated and what some of our leaders are saying is all lies. Since the attack on Iraq there have been a few major terrorist acts, that I can remember, which is proof itself that while they may have defeated Sadam and probably killed most of the Taliban terrorism is still active around the world and even trying to defend against it will be hard.Anyone can be a terrorist so how does a country prevent a terrorist from getting in and causing all this trouble? It can't stop all foreigners to a country because then the world will be a very lonely placea. And even then some terrorists attack their own countries, see the IRA for example. So even keeping our troops at home to patrol our borders still won't stop an attack from happening and precious lives will be lost anyway.

[Avalon 1]

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight and it affects nearly everyone all around the world to some extent. Fortunately here in Australia we have been lucky so far, but it's really only a matter of time. In the meantime, Australians along with many other people from other countries are attacked all around the world. I don't think sending soldiers overseas will help, how can you attack an enemy you can't identify? This is the same problem with setting up defences at borders, how can you decide who to let in and who to stop?Yes terrorism is a real problem, and the fact the world is 'terrified' about being attacked unfortunately means the terrorists are successful in invoking terror on their targets. Whether this be by physical attacks or just the notion that they might attack someone.So how do you fight terrorism? I really don't know the answer, but I do believe while we should take steps to protect ourselves from attack, we should also try not to be paranoid about it. We should try to live our lives as normal as we possibly can. Of course that is not an easy thing to do if you have been directly affected by a terrorist attack such as 9/11 which affected so many.

[Mich 0]

Very interesting responses people. Gives me much thought to ponder. Views I hadn't encountered before. But I still think our service people would be safer patrolling our borders than they are patrolling Iraq's borders?

 

Ran across this story about an incident brought on by the Patriot Act. Seems they are making "random" body and carry-on checks of passengers at airports. To avoid any "descrimination" the people are selected by means of randomly placing a red check mark on their ticket. Well, some guy's 7 year old daughter's ticket got checked and she was taken off someplace for a search. What a waste of securities efforts. How many 7 year girl's have been terrorists. This being politically correct and making sure not to offend someone by descriminating against them is being carried too far. If I were a passenger, I would certainly have rather had the time and effort spent searching a male passenger who was acting suspiciously than bothering that poor little girl. Needless to say, her father was greatly offended.

[no9t9 0]

Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religion except that religious people USE terrorism.Terrorism is usually used by a group of people who are against a significantly stronger enemy. Sometimes known as guerrilla warfare, depending on the application. Because the enemy is so strong, the attacks tend to be small and annoying. Because these attacks are small, it allows the group to stay underground and avoid the need for mass coordination (which would be a risk for leaks).The difference between guerrilla warfare and terroism is the choice of targets. Terrorism has no "rules" and anything goes, whereas guerillas attack military related targets. Terrorists actually favor civilian targets because it provides maximum damage to the moral of the enemy. To stop terrorism the way Bush is going is impossible. The US government knows that. You can't "attack" terrorists or wage "war" against terror. The root of terroism comes from an "idea" and you can't attack or kill an idea with physical weapons. It is just stupid. So, the attack on Iraq was not about terroism... that was just an excuse for the masses (like WMDs).The only way to "beat" terrorism is to get rid of the other group's "idea" or learn to live with it. To beat terrorism, tolerance is the only way to do it. The US "war on terror" goes in a completly wrong direction if they REALLY want to fight terroism. Of course, they don't want to fight terrorism... they just wanted an excuse to attack iraq.BTW, even the attack on Afghanistan was a setback to the REAL fight against terrorism. But, atleast that target was more acceptable since there were direct links to Afghanistan and 9/11. The world accepted that the US had to do something (get revenge) for 9/11. Outside of this, any attacks on a sovreign country is ILLEGAL using the excuse of terrorism. The US knew that, which is why they added WMDs to the list against Iraq.Who thinks US foriegn policy is made by unethical *BLEEP*s? Raise your hand.

[wariorpk 0]

I think that you can have a war against terrorism. Many of the terrorists belong to a certain group of fighters. You can fight terrorism by attacking those groups of fighters like you would any other army. Of course they most likely will not surrender like a normal army would but at least America is showing people that we will not stand by and be attacked. I agree with that point of view.

[morosophos 0]

General John Pershing had an interesting approach when it came to dealing with guerilla warfare in the Phillipines. Muslim warriors had been causing problems similar to those of the terrorists in Iraq (less the bombs, of course). Having captured roughly a hundred of them, he shot each of them with a bullet soaked in swine's blood (thereby condemning those shot to Hell). He left one alive to tell the rest what happened there.

 

Of course, no one could possibly hope to effect something like that today. The world would freak. As if America weren't unpopular enough already. Instead, perhaps there is a better, more logical way of dealing with terrorism, and that is defeating its very principal, terror.

 

Perhaps the best way of dealing with terrorists is completely to ignore them. They want to cause fear, so if no one allows them this fear, then they really won't be doing much good. While it may seem ridiculous to outright not acknowledge attacks and to furthermore not retaliate, it does seem to make the most logical sense. If the terrorists fail to accomplish anything, what is the point in persistence?

[mirra 0]

The Temperature RisesWe should liberate Iran first ? now.hile the world obsesses on Iraq, Iran, the most-important country in the Middle East ? and the keystone of the terror network ? has once again been shaken by the rage of its people. On the one hand looms the terrible regime which, fearing that it may be brought down by the kind of national insurrection that the mullahs led against the shah 23 years ago, is lashing out in an increasingly incoherent wave of thuggery, torture, and public executions and amputations. On the other, those segments of the population able to organize are demonstrating their contempt for the regime, daring the security forces to do their worst.And so, once again the University of Tehran ? at several different campuses ? was the scene of violent demonstrations, leading one of the country's leading elected representatives (Ahmad Pour Nejati, the head of the parliament's cultural committee) to say that the country is headed for an uncertain future, without so much as a parachute.The demonstrations began on Saturday at 6:35 in the afternoon in Tehran. The pretext for the gathering was given by hundreds of cases of food poisoning, and the public revelation that students were being fed low- quality meat. Within an hour the security forces closed all streets leading to the university, and the students began singing the old Iranian national anthem ? banned by the mullahs. At 9 o'clock, ten bus loads of security forces arrived on the scene, and the thugs tried to force the students back into the university buildings, but they were driven back, as the students chanted "Hashemi (Rafsanjani), Pinochet, Iran will not be a Chile," along with "(failed reformist president) Khatami, resign!" and "referendum, referendum."When the security forces were driven back, the students lit bonfires with wood and tires, at which point the security forces fired gas grenades at the crowds. The fighting went on until 1:30 in the morning. Thirty- seven students were arrested.The demonstrations resumed on Sunday, with nearly 2,000 students chanting against Rafsanjani and again demanding a referendum. Later in the day the body of one of their leaders ? Ruhollah Ghoujani ? was found under a bridge, with visible signs of terrible vengeance on it. He had been murdered by the goon squad from the Intelligence Ministry. The Faculty of Trade and Commerce was also shut down, as was the Fatemiah University in Qom, that was supposed to have been a model for the next generation of Iranian higher education. Yet another bad sign for the mullahcracy, as is the call for yet another demonstration on Tuesday, this one in the mosque at Tehran University. In yet another development, scores of women have demonstrated in Tabriz against the oppressive actions of the Basij, the regime's prize bullies.Meanwhile, some of the braver members of parliament have decided to vote with their feet as well as their mouths. When university professor Hashem Aghajari was sentenced to death last week, it provoked considerable public condemnation, and on Sunday two MPs resigned in protest. Both were from the western regions, and one, Hossein Loqmanian, had first-hand experience with Islamic Justice, Iranian style, having himself earned the honor of becoming the first member of parliament to be thrown into prison since the 1979 revolution. Loqmanian represents Hamedan, which is where the court passed its outrageous sentence on Aghajari, condemning him for blasphemy even though some of the country's leading religious authorities had said the charges were baseless. And even the Parliament Speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, denounced the sentence and demanded it be reversed.Both the regime and its opponents are rapidly reaching a point of no return, and the odds certainly favor the people. The mullahs are hopelessly outnumbered, and the forces of freedom in Iran are getting braver all the time. Late last week a commander from the Revolutionary Guards announced he would not order his men to fire on student demonstrators, and was immediately replaced, but this sort of thing can be contagious, as General Jaruselski and Slobodan Milosovic found to their doom. The mullahs are constantly firing and hiring new thugs to protect them against the wrath of the people, and the question is whether or not there is a sufficient supply of killers to forestall the end of this hated regime.This is yet another test of the courage and coherence of American leaders. President Bush has been outstanding in endorsing the calls for freedom in Iran, as has Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. It would be nice if Secretary of State Powell added his own eloquence to the chorus, especially because many Iranians fear that the State Department is still trying to cut a deal with the mullahs.I have long argued that it would be better to liberate Iran before Iraq, and events may soon give us that opportunity. Let's hope our national-security team recognizes how wonderful an opportunity it is, and therefore gives the Iranian freedom fighters the assistance they so richly deserve.Faster, please. Opportunity is knocking at our door.