Who is responsible for fighting terrorists?

[jimnyc]

Is it solely the people who are hit by terrorists? Allies?

I submit that terrorism is a crime against all of humanity, and all nations should take an interest in stamping it out. I think all nations should submit a little help. I think if everyone worked together for a common goal, that perhaps we would be in a different world today. But terrorists are free in some countries, free to cross borders and even have alliances themselves with powerful people around the world.

But imagine for a moment, pick any place from Africa, to Iraq to Afghanistan. Imagine the fight also coming from other countries in the ME, or Russia, perhaps Japan or China. Instead, alliances are more important than ridding the world of terrorism. And don't think the terrorists don't know where best to hang their hats at night.

I thought of this when I read an article where China talked of their military as a "force for good". But I think if that were true, then they would actively fight terrorism and help others with this "good".

Some countries help out no matter the issue, every time without fail, sometimes at high costs. Some countries don't do a damn thing. Some don't do a damn thing, and then condemn those that do.

[fj1200]

Who is responsible for fighting nuclear proliferation?

Who is responsible for fighting small arms trafficking?

Who is responsible for fighting climate change?




that last one was a bit o' fodder for the knuckleheads

[jimnyc]

Who is responsible for fighting nuclear proliferation?

Who is responsible for fighting small arms trafficking?

Who is responsible for fighting climate change?

You might be implying that UN, useless bastards. But in a perfect world that would work, as what I am trying to point out is that all countries should want to stamp out the terrorists, regardless of how they feel about their neighbors at the moment. So yes, an agency of sorts that oversaw the whole thing would be nice, but the UN has no backbone and is a large failure, IMO.

But nevermind them. I'm trying to gauge if others believe like I do or not, that we should all want to rid the world of terrorism, all countries, and when possible all should help out in anyway possible to reach those goals. One of the major things keeping them going is the "non-participants" and those who turn a blind eye.

[tailfins]

Is it solely the people who are hit by terrorists? Allies?

I submit that terrorism is a crime against all of humanity, and all nations should take an interest in stamping it out. I think all nations should submit a little help. I think if everyone worked together for a common goal, that perhaps we would be in a different world today. But terrorists are free in some countries, free to cross borders and even have alliances themselves with powerful people around the world.

But imagine for a moment, pick any place from Africa, to Iraq to Afghanistan. Imagine the fight also coming from other countries in the ME, or Russia, perhaps Japan or China. Instead, alliances are more important than ridding the world of terrorism. And don't think the terrorists don't know where best to hang their hats at night.

I thought of this when I read an article where China talked of their military as a "force for good". But I think if that were true, then they would actively fight terrorism and help others with this "good".

Some countries help out no matter the issue, every time without fail, sometimes at high costs. Some countries don't do a damn thing. Some don't do a damn thing, and then condemn those that do.

It's the responsibility of the US military only for terrorists at risk of hitting the US. See the military oath as a reference:


I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[jimnyc]

It's the responsibility of the US military only for terrorists at risk of hitting the US. See the military oath as a reference:

I'm not sure I read that the same. That would also invalidate many battles our soldiers have been involved in over the years, where the US mainland wasn't in danger of being hit. We entered battles in the past for the good of the cause, for the lives of others and what was best for the world. Unlike Iran, and what our Navy states often - "A global force for good" - only our Navy and the rest of the military actually live up to that. The Navy will patrol and respond to natural disasters, to other emergencies and issues involving the need of the men in the ships and sometimes just a show of force. If another country is in trouble, our guys are ready to respond.

Look at Uganda and other places that we are seeing civilians slaughtered. It's of the mentality that "it's not our land" that allows innocent people to continue being slaughtered. And I'm not saying our soldiers need to put their lives at risk in every country in the world, but if every country in the world wanted to stamp shit like that out - we wouldn't need to be the ones all the time.

Like I said, I believe terrorism and the slaughter of innocent people is a crime against ALL of humanity. If other countries sit back and shrug their shoulders, people like those guilty of such atrocities tend to grow.

[fj1200]

You might be implying that UN, useless bastards. But in a perfect world that would work, as what I am trying to point out is that all countries should want to stamp out the terrorists, regardless of how they feel about their neighbors at the moment. So yes, an agency of sorts that oversaw the whole thing would be nice, but the UN has no backbone and is a large failure, IMO.

But nevermind them. I'm trying to gauge if others believe like I do or not, that we should all want to rid the world of terrorism, all countries, and when possible all should help out in anyway possible to reach those goals. One of the major things keeping them going is the "non-participants" and those who turn a blind eye.

I'm not necessarily implying the UN but it's a matter of priorities and the precedent being set if one country is ready to take unilateral action. Other countries may rank climate change higher than we rank terrorism. But yes, we should all want to rid the world of terrorism but are we violating the sovereignty of other nations or are we acting where outside of our national interests?

[aboutime]

ALL HUMAN BEINGS who know, and recognize Terrorists, and their actions ARE RESPONSIBLE to FIGHT terrorists.

Who among all of us here on DP would simply stand still, and do nothing if WE WITNESSED terrorism being done to neighbors, friends, or members of our families...or OUR military?

ANYONE who would do nothing DESERVES to be a victim of terror.

[Drummond]

George W Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, had this exactly right ... see ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism.
In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action. He said he would deliver that message in his speech Saturday to the United Nations.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

My belief is this: had all nations heeded his words, if there's been a massive international partnership in the War on Terror, one where no nation (.. except maybe in the most hardline Muslim ones, ones most likely to side with Al Qaeda .. ?) had stinted in its efforts to play its part .. today, terrorist groups would find the world environment so toxic to their interests that they'd be forced to hide out in those few corners of the world prepared to tolerate their existence.

And action could've been taken against those remaining strongholds .. with most of the world behind any such effort.

Instead, what did we see ? Lukewarm support at best, many countries offering nothing but words, many others reining in their capabilities. In the case of Spain, the US had a very worthy Conservative ally in Aznar, at first -- then Zapotero, for their Leftie Party, took over, and promptly reneged on that country's anti-terrorism efforts.

The Left in my view have done much to stymie anti-terrorist efforts. They went on marches to try and stop any action against Saddam's Iraq. Aznar, as I've said, was stopped from helping as he'd have wanted to. Left wing agitators tried to divert sympathies away from such an effort, by saying that issues such as climate change needed much more urgent action, and anti-terrorism efforts got in the way of that.

Other Lefties just 'went for the jugular', and did their best to demonise the US in general and Bush in particular, branding him a 'warmonger' who should stand trial for 'war crimes'.

Tony Blair, otherwise a fairly typical Leftie at home, acted honourably in teaming up with Bush over the War on Terror. For this, he was branded by his own Left as 'Bush's poodle' ... and he even had two Cabinet Ministers resign their jobs rather than accept Blair's leadership (Clare Short and Robin Cook).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-172253/Robin-Cook-resigns-Cabinet.html


Commons Leader Robin Cook has become the first Cabinet casualty of the planned war on Iraq - quitting his post minutes before an emergency meeting of ministers.

Downing Street announced his resignation shortly after an emergency Cabinet had gathered.

Mr Cook said in a statement: "It is with regret I have today resigned from its Cabinet. I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

He added: "It is 20 years ago that I first joined Labour's shadow cabinet. It is with regret I have today resigned from its Cabinet.

"I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support," he added.

Former Cabinet minister Chris Smith, who has led Labour rebels in opposing war, told Sky News: "It is a very honourable step that Robin has taken.

"He clearly felt that he could not support going to war without proper United Nations authorisation. He will be a sad loss to the Cabinet and the Government."
International Development Secretary Clare Short is "reflecting overnight" on her position, a spokeswoman from her department said.

TRULY SHAMEFUL.

There was a Leftie trying to hide behind his concept of international precedent, as his excuse for arguing against strong anti-terror actions. Trust a Leftie to attempt such a tactic ... it's a well-tried one from their side of the fence.

And that's the way of it. Right-wing thought and action led the War on Terror initiative. But the Left dreamed up every excuse under the sun to weaken and undermine it.

THEY WOULD DO SO AGAIN IF THEY COULD, HAVING LEARNED NOTHING AND NOT CARING TO ... EVER.

[jimnyc]

I'm not necessarily implying the UN but it's a matter of priorities and the precedent being set if one country is ready to take unilateral action. Other countries may rank climate change higher than we rank terrorism. But yes, we should all want to rid the world of terrorism but are we violating the sovereignty of other nations or are we acting where outside of our national interests?

I acknowledge any potential sovereignty issues, but I assumed that if all countries were on the same page, then the country we are going to help would be on board. Many Islamic countries suffer from terrorism and such but don't want help from anyone. Then you have places like Pakistan, where they don't want help, and claim they want to rid the world of terrorism too. Then it seems like every other terrorist is found in Pakistan. Same with Yemen. And this isn't about pointing fingers at any one or 2 or 3 countries, because there are a lot more than that that don't seem to give a shit enough.

As for national interests - I think it's good for EVERY countries national interests to put an end to terrorism before it grows more and comes to their shores. To answer for the USA directly, I believe it's definitely in our national interest, as the majority of terrorists out there see us as a prime target.

[jimnyc]

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

:clap:

And he was right! Even those that simply shut up and turn a blind eye are making things worse.

[Drummond]

:clap:

And he was right! Even those that simply shut up and turn a blind eye are making things worse.:clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

I acknowledge any potential sovereignty issues, but I assumed that if all countries were on the same page, then the country we are going to help would be on board. Many Islamic countries suffer from terrorism and such but don't want help from anyone. Then you have places like Pakistan, where they don't want help, and claim they want to rid the world of terrorism too. Then it seems like every other terrorist is found in Pakistan. Same with Yemen. And this isn't about pointing fingers at any one or 2 or 3 countries, because there are a lot more than that that don't seem to give a shit enough.

As for national interests - I think it's good for EVERY countries national interests to put an end to terrorism before it grows more and comes to their shores. To answer for the USA directly, I believe it's definitely in our national interest, as the majority of terrorists out there see us as a prime target.

And some countries are barely able to sustain themselves let alone helping other countries with their terrorism problems let alone the ones who harbor terrorists. It's just kind of a pie in the sky question, of course every country should be responsible but the reality is less than encouraging.

[jimnyc]

And some countries are barely able to sustain themselves let alone helping other countries with their terrorism problems let alone the ones who harbor terrorists. It's just kind of a pie in the sky question, of course every country should be responsible but the reality is less than encouraging.

I completely understand that there will be some countries that can't afford to get involved or even add a penny to the efforts. So long as they allow others to help them if terrorism gets out of hand in their country, and that of course they don't help or harbor terrorists.

[fj1200]

Which terrorists should we be going after?

[Drummond]

I completely understand that there will be some countries that can't afford to get involved or even add a penny to the efforts. So long as they allow others to help them if terrorism gets out of hand in their country, and that of course they don't help or harbor terrorists.

There may be some countries whose military resources and expenditures don't allow for a military commitment. Even so, they may have intelligence gathering capabilities. Or, they may act as bases for those powers wishing to use their territory for intelligence or military purposes. For example: Iceland was home to the US's Keflavik airbase. The UK has US bases in its borders. There are all sorts of ways of helping .. if not directly, then INdirectly ..

By the way, is this Obama's doing ? From a report dated 21st March this year ...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/what_would_be_the_impact_on_our_region_if_raf_lake nheath_was_to_close_1_3461393


For almost seven decades RAF Lakenheath has resounded to the roar of US military aircraft.

Giant B-29 bombers, soaring Phantoms, U2 spy-planes, the F-111 and more recently F-15 aircraft, have operated from an expanse of north Suffolk which has Uncle Sam’s stamp firmly on it. The US air force presence is the continuation of a line reaching back to the Second World War when thousands of Americans flew from East Anglian airfields on missions over Europe, with many air crew never returning.

As the global map changed during the Cold War, bases such as RAF Lakenheath stood on the front line, as they have more recently with conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall remained the two key US bases in the region, an important part of the fabric of East Anglia, making a massive economic – and cultural – contribution to the community in terms of jobs and money spent locally.

Yet that link now seems under threat, with a think-tank report prepared by the RAND Corporation for the US government indicating that RAF Lakenheath could close as the American military re-thinks its global strategy and presence.

The option of closing Lakenheath is part of the ongoing European Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) review under way by the US Department of Defence, with the results due to be published later this year.

RAF Lakenheath is the UK’s biggest US air force base and home to 48th Fighter Wing, with the F-15 strike aircraft and Pave Hawk helicopters.

Figures show that closing RAF Lakenheath, which has almost 4,500 servicemen and women supported by nearly 2,000 British and American civilians, could save the US air force $314m (£190m) every year.

The 487-page RAND report recommends Lakenheath for closure under two options and suggests relocating its resident 48th Fighter Wing to another base in the third, leaving just its intelligence and communication operations.

[Drummond]

Which terrorists should we be going after?

How about ... those seeing themselves to be our enemies ? Seems reasonable .. yes ?

And of course, those who'd attack Western nations, or interests .. those countries who are natural allies, such as Israel ... they deserve to know that their allies will stand firm with them if or when terrorists threaten them.

But, let me guess: you see impediments to any / all of that. Am I correct ?

[jafar00]

Since the US and it's allies created them, it is up to the US and it's allies to get rid of them.

I suggest stop all political meddling and war mongering first, then damage control including massive spending on education and diplomacy to fix the mess made of most of the developing world.

[jimnyc]

Which terrorists should we be going after?

Those that kill? If the entire world pitched in, "we" wouldn't have to do much at all.

[jimnyc]

Since the US and it's allies created them, it is up to the US and it's allies to get rid of them.

I suggest stop all political meddling and war mongering first, then damage control including massive spending on education and diplomacy to fix the mess made of most of the developing world.

So is it the job of Islam to perpetuate all terrorism and embrace it like they do their children? Why do Muslims prefer terrorism and abuse of women more than they do life? Why does Islam condone the killing of children? Sick.

[Gaffer]

Since the US and it's allies created them, it is up to the US and it's allies to get rid of them.

I suggest stop all political meddling and war mongering first, then damage control including massive spending on education and diplomacy to fix the mess made of most of the developing world.

Okay, let's stop all aid to foreign countries. That's meddling you know. Sending in troops to assist or help protect a country is meddling. We need to get out of Nigeria and quit meddling with those kidnapped girls. We could pull companies out of other countries along with our finances. That's meddling.

Now as for that favorite leftie term warmongering. Tell me jafar what exactly, to you, is warmongering? And after you answer that lets compare it to islam just for shits and giggles.

[fj1200]

Those that kill? If the entire world pitched in, "we" wouldn't have to do much at all.

Kill who?

[fj1200]

How about ... those seeing themselves to be our enemies ? Seems reasonable .. yes ?

And of course, those who'd attack Western nations, or interests .. those countries who are natural allies, such as Israel ... they deserve to know that their allies will stand firm with them if or when terrorists threaten them.

But, let me guess: you see impediments to any / all of that. Am I correct ?

Those who see themselves as our enemies? No, doesn't seem reasonable. I'm unconcerned how they see themselves.

Those who attack us? Sure, that's a direct assault. Those who attack our allies? Sure, if they're unable to help themselves.

As usual, you are not correct.

[jimnyc]

Kill who?

I'm speaking in general, about terrorists, and who should be a part of the worldwide fight to stem it. You seem to want to challenge me as to what the definition of terrorism is, or who these people kill. Regardless of the answers, the question remains the same. I think most of us know what a terrorist is and that killing innocent people and/or civilians is their MO. The point isn't to debate how I worded the question, but the general idea of what I'm asking.

[fj1200]

I'm speaking in general, about terrorists, and who should be a part of the worldwide fight to stem it. You seem to want to challenge me as to what the definition of terrorism is, or who these people kill. Regardless of the answers, the question remains the same. I think most of us know what a terrorist is and that killing innocent people and/or civilians is their MO. The point isn't to debate how I worded the question, but the general idea of what I'm asking.

So when Shia and Sunnis go at it in Iraq and Iran for example you're advocating that we step in and be responsible for fighting terrorists? The question here is not the definition of terrorism. As I understand it the point is to debate who is responsible for fighting terrorists and your apparent assertion that we are all responsible no matter where it occurs.

[jimnyc]

So when Shia and Sunnis go at it in Iraq and Iran for example you're advocating that we step in and be responsible for fighting terrorists? The question here is not the definition of terrorism. As I understand it the point is to debate who is responsible for fighting terrorists and your apparent assertion that we are all responsible no matter where it occurs.

In the example you make, I would expect Iran and Iraq to come together and stop any issues within their borders, instead of making issues worse with how they handle it now. And yes, if that's literally not possible, then I would expect they would allow assistance from their neighbors. Unless of course you are saying it's literally impossible for Muslims to have peace in one nation? And you're stuck on "we" - as I think people around the world should be responsible, and that includes the very people in the nations having the issues, and their authorities, and help from those in the region. I'm not saying that this is all somehow America's issue - that's Jafar's contention.

[fj1200]

Unless of course you are saying it's literally impossible for Muslims to have peace in one nation?

No, what I'm saying it's literally impossible to stamp out terrorism. Especially as long as ignorance, poverty, and totalitarianism rule the day in parts of the world.

[jimnyc]

No, what I'm saying it's literally impossible to stamp out terrorism. Especially as long as ignorance, poverty, and totalitarianism rule the day in parts of the world.

Maybe literally 100% - but there's no reason for everyone not to do their part, which would come a LOT closer to stopping it than with governments looking the other way, or assisting, or people assisting or looking the other way, or people sitting back because of allies and such. There's no perfection but a LOT of room for improvement.

[fj1200]

Maybe literally 100% - but there's no reason for everyone not to do their part, which would come a LOT closer to stopping it than with governments looking the other way, or assisting, or people assisting or looking the other way, or people sitting back because of allies and such. There's no perfection but a LOT of room for improvement.

We'll never come close to that as my posit is that terror isn't where the fight will be won, it's that ignorance, poverty, and totalitarianism are the real enemies. Of course we'll never really win that battle either; Totalitarians don't give up easily.

[Drummond]

No, what I'm saying it's literally impossible to stamp out terrorism. Especially as long as ignorance, poverty, and totalitarianism rule the day in parts of the world.

That's like saying that because there's no total cure for cancer, those remedies which can be applied, shouldn't be ... that it's better to just leave it alone.

How far would American pioneers have got if they'd just ceased to try and settle in their land, build houses and communities, because those pesky Indians kept turning up ??

No, FJ. No less than the maximum possible effort against terrorism SHOULD suffice. Less than that, and you do them needless favours. Favours one day to be translated into avoidable deaths of your countrymen.

I'm not surprised at your push towards at least comparative defeatism, FJ .. it is, after all, consistent with tactics long since seen from the Left ...

Oh, and one other thought for you to mull over -- in those fights you think should be free from intervention ... what if, as a by-product, differing terrorist groupings find they have common cause, and so start cooperation between themselves .. strengthening their numbers, capabilities. And what if, newly strengthened, they become increasingly capable of exporting their terrorism, in years to come, to YOUR shores ?

Lack of exerted control could lead anywhere, given enough time.

[jafar00]

So is it the job of Islam to perpetuate all terrorism and embrace it like they do their children? Why do Muslims prefer terrorism and abuse of women more than they do life? Why does Islam condone the killing of children? Sick.

You cannot say Islam supports those things when the opposite is true. Islam opposes terrorism, abuse of women and the killing of anyone including children. Why are you trying to push the opposite agenda? You should be cwlwbrating the truth of Islam, not propping up the claims of criminal.


No, what I'm saying it's literally impossible to stamp out terrorism. Especially as long as ignorance, poverty, and totalitarianism rule the day in parts of the world.

Hear, Hear.


Maybe literally 100% - but there's no reason for everyone not to do their part, which would come a LOT closer to stopping it than with governments looking the other way, or assisting, or people assisting or looking the other way, or people sitting back because of allies and such. There's no perfection but a LOT of room for improvement.

The vast majority of people do the right thing. The few that don't make a loud noise and why not? They can do something terrible and get it splashed across the front pages of the world. Such free publicity is a good motivator for a terrorist.

Western Media, by reporting it is supporting terrorism. Anti Islam campaigners are also fighting for the terrorists by trying to prove that Islam supports them. You should be condemning them.

[jimnyc]

You cannot say Islam supports those things when the opposite is true. Islam opposes terrorism, abuse of women and the killing of anyone including children. Why are you trying to push the opposite agenda? You should be cwlwbrating the truth of Islam, not propping up the claims of criminal.

Is the death penalty for something like adultery a part of Islam's world?

Back on topic, how do you figure America has created all the terrorists when more than the overwhelming majority are Islamic terror groups? Are you saying that America has created these people?

[fj1200]

That's like saying that because there's no total cure for cancer, those remedies which can be applied, shouldn't be ... that it's better to just leave it alone.

How far would American pioneers have got if they'd just ceased to try and settle in their land, build houses and communities, because those pesky Indians kept turning up ??

No, FJ. No less than the maximum possible effort against terrorism SHOULD suffice. Less than that, and you do them needless favours. Favours one day to be translated into avoidable deaths of your countrymen.

I'm not surprised at your push towards at least comparative defeatism, FJ .. it is, after all, consistent with tactics long since seen from the Left ...

Oh, and one other thought for you to mull over -- in those fights you think should be free from intervention ... what if, as a by-product, differing terrorist groupings find they have common cause, and so start cooperation between themselves .. strengthening their numbers, capabilities. And what if, newly strengthened, they become increasingly capable of exporting their terrorism, in years to come, to YOUR shores ?

Lack of exerted control could lead anywhere, given enough time.

Oh geez. The crutch appears. :rolleyes:

Terrorism isn't the cancer, it's the pussy discharge from the cancer of poverty, ignorance, and totalitarianism. You spend all of your time railing against what you can never control and never eliminate; the defeatism is yours because all you have left is hate and fear.

I am not for intervention for the sake of intervention. When the US is threatened we can take action, when we are invited to help we can take action, when two groups start targeting each other where we have no interest we need not take action; I reject your premise. I'll choose a course of action that has a chance of success.

And American Indians? :laugh: That's as comical as those pesky slave rebellions; how dare they?

[fj1200]

Premises:

Terrorism is bad
Someday terrorists might come for us
We must fight terrorism everywhere
Islamic-fascists commit acts of terror
Islamic-fascism is worse


History:


Saddam Hussein committed terrorism
We deposed Hussein
Islamic-fascism is on the rise in Iraq


Conclusions:

Fighting terrorism everywhere is counter-productive
It leads to Islamic-fascism


Any disputes?

[jimnyc]

Premises:

Terrorism is bad
Someday terrorists might come for us
We must fight terrorism everywhere
Islamic-fascists commit acts of terror
Islamic-fascism is worse


History:


Saddam Hussein committed terrorism
We deposed Hussein
Islamic-fascism is on the rise in Iraq


Conclusions:

Fighting terrorism everywhere is counter-productive
It leads to Islamic-fascism


Any disputes?

Surely you're not basing the entire idea of fighting back against terrorism on one scenario? And that's the same as saying "we fought terrorists and they eventually came back, no point in fighting them". We could apply the same logic to basic crime here in the US. Fight back against crime in NYC. Then the crime rate increases over a 5 year period. We conclude that fighting crime is counter productive. Yes, I dispute the entire idea.

[fj1200]

Surely you're not basing the entire idea of fighting back against terrorism on one scenario? And that's the same as saying "we fought terrorists and they eventually came back, no point in fighting them". We could apply the same logic to basic crime here in the US. Fight back against crime in NYC. Then the crime rate increases over a 5 year period. We conclude that fighting crime is counter productive. Yes, I dispute the entire idea.

Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Iraq is just the scenario I chose based on two other threads. And I think before you dispute the entire idea you should identify an incorrect premise or point of history. Your crime scenario isn't really applicable to the realities of terrorism; we shouldn't fight crime in the Middle East and expect it to have an impact here. Although you could suggest that fighting the drug cartels in Mexico or the drug lords in Columbia might be effective in limiting drug related crime here.

Also, the more relevant part of the conclusion was in fighting terrorism "everywhere."

[jimnyc]

Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Iraq is just the scenario I chose based on two other threads. And I think before you dispute the entire idea you should identify an incorrect premise or point of history. Your crime scenario isn't really applicable to the realities of terrorism; we shouldn't fight crime in the Middle East and expect it to have an impact here. Although you could suggest that fighting the drug cartels in Mexico or the drug lords in Columbia might be effective in limiting drug related crime here.

Also, the more relevant part of the conclusion was in fighting terrorism "everywhere."

The "everywhere" portion should be something that countries all over the world chip into fighting.

And while you can point out some shitty scenarios, I can point out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dead terrorists that can no longer kill anyone. That includes OBL. Without fighting terrorism, it's possible that hundreds of thousands more might be dead at their hands. Also, the countries you point out, they aren't really into the fight. As I stated quite a few times, countries need to contribute, all of them. They can't turn a blind eye, or sympathize, or let terrorism roam their back yards. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria - you're pointing out the very places I speak of. THEY are responsible for fighting terrorism as well, or letting others help them. But they choose neither, hence the fact they are royal shitholes.

Or, alternatively, we could do like you imply, ignore it if it isn't in our backyard, and just hope that we don't get hit again, and that other countries don't start empowering them and helping them rebuild. They are NOT going to just go away if we leave them alone, or if the entire world ignores them.

[Gaffer]

Depends on your definition of the word is, right Bill.


Premises:
Terrorism is bad No terrorism is evil. A post by gabby is bad.
Someday terrorists might come for us They are already here.
We must fight terrorism everywhere Define everywhere.
Islamic-fascists commit acts of terror True statement
Islamic-fascism is worse Worse than what?


History:

Saddam Hussein committed terrorism True
We deposed Hussein Because he didn't comply with UN directives.
Islamic-fascism is on the rise in Iraq And has nothing to do with huessein, he's still dead.


Conclusions:
Fighting terrorism everywhere is counter-productive Define everywhere.
It leads to Islamic-fascism The koran leads to islamic-fascism.


Any disputes? Yeah

[Drummond]

History already teaches us what being at all soft on terrorism can, and does, lead to.

The world left Afghanistan alone. Result .. courtesy of the Taliban, Al Qaeda settled in, established their terrorist camps, recruited, trained, ultimately executed the terrorist atrocity we all know as '9/11'.

Allow so much as one 'safe haven' for Islamic terrorism, and it thrives. So the one - the ONLY one - course of action that's reasonable is to be so committed to fighting terrorism that it is denied such an opportunity.

And Jim has it right, in my view. On the one hand, the US needs to perpetuate its efforts as the world has seen them. But likewise, other countries need to do their bit, as well. GW Bush made this point, and he was right. But much of the world was decidedly 'lukewarm' on that idea ... with the result that terrorism, today, is far from eradicated.

Lack of effort / interest led to Afghanistan, circa 2000-2001. Making Afghanistan too toxic an option in the latter part of 2001 forced Al Qaeda to flee, decentralise, suffer crippling losses. They've been wrong-footed, comparatively at least, ever since.

Terrorist successes today exist because the initial momentum against terrorism was lost .. AND ALSO .. because other countries sat back and let the US do most of the work.

What news reports are we getting, TODAY, from Iraq ? Is what we hear the product of a sustained anti-terrorist effort, or, its EXACT OPPOSITE ?

Perhaps anyone arguing for the commitment against terrorism to be less than total will be prepared to see an Afghanistan Mark #2 emerge, and further '9/11's' to be the result ??

[fj1200]

The "everywhere" portion should be something that countries all over the world chip into fighting.

And while you can point out some shitty scenarios, I can point out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dead terrorists that can no longer kill anyone. That includes OBL. Without fighting terrorism, it's possible that hundreds of thousands more might be dead at their hands. Also, the countries you point out, they aren't really into the fight. As I stated quite a few times, countries need to contribute, all of them. They can't turn a blind eye, or sympathize, or let terrorism roam their back yards. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria - you're pointing out the very places I speak of. THEY are responsible for fighting terrorism as well, or letting others help them. But they choose neither, hence the fact they are royal shitholes.

Or, alternatively, we could do like you imply, ignore it if it isn't in our backyard, and just hope that we don't get hit again, and that other countries don't start empowering them and helping them rebuild. They are NOT going to just go away if we leave them alone, or if the entire world ignores them.

I agree that it would be nice if all countries did in fact "chip in" but that's not going to happen. And of course there are dead terrorists, it's pretty easy to make a dead terrorist especially if we're not concerned with collateral damage or the downstream effects of our actions; our policy does not exist in a vacuum. So what becomes of the "S' holes" if we don't do anything? Is it your suggestion that we move in a take action when other countries fail to do something? My posit was that we tried that in Iraq and possibly made the situation worse.

And my implication is not to ignore them if they're not in our backyard, my premise is that automatically taking some sort of action is no guarantee of a better outcome.

[fj1200]

Depends on your definition of the word is, right Bill.


Premises:
Terrorism is bad No terrorism is evil. A post by gabby is bad.
Someday terrorists might come for us They are already here.
We must fight terrorism everywhere Define everywhere.
Islamic-fascists commit acts of terror True statement
Islamic-fascism is worse Worse than what?


History:

Saddam Hussein committed terrorism True
We deposed Hussein Because he didn't comply with UN directives.
Islamic-fascism is on the rise in Iraq And has nothing to do with huessein, he's still dead.


Conclusions:
Fighting terrorism everywhere is counter-productive Define everywhere.
It leads to Islamic-fascism The koran leads to islamic-fascism.


Any disputes? Yeah

Has nothing to do with Bill, it has everything to do with not having a dumb policy.

OK, terrorism is evil. That doesn't change anything
OK, terrorists are "here." We'll fight it.
Everywhere is everywhere, world wide. 'cause 9/11 you know.
Thank you, it's true.
Worse than terrorism.

Yes, he committed terrorism
But he still committed terrorist acts that should be fought right?
We created a power vacuum which allows Islamic-fascism.

Everywhere is everywhere, world wide. 'cause 9/11 you know.
Power vacuums lead to Islamic-fascism.

Disputes? I don't really see that your answers change the outcome.

[fj1200]

History already teaches us what being at all soft on terrorism can, and does, lead to.

The world left Afghanistan alone. Result .. courtesy of the Taliban, Al Qaeda settled in, established their terrorist camps, recruited, trained, ultimately executed the terrorist atrocity we all know as '9/11'.

Allow so much as one 'safe haven' for Islamic terrorism, and it thrives. So the one - the ONLY one - course of action that's reasonable is to be so committed to fighting terrorism that it is denied such an opportunity.

And Jim has it right, in my view. On the one hand, the US needs to perpetuate its efforts as the world has seen them. But likewise, other countries need to do their bit, as well. GW Bush made this point, and he was right. But much of the world was decidedly 'lukewarm' on that idea ... with the result that terrorism, today, is far from eradicated.

Lack of effort / interest led to Afghanistan, circa 2000-2001. Making Afghanistan too toxic an option in the latter part of 2001 forced Al Qaeda to flee, decentralise, suffer crippling losses. They've been wrong-footed, comparatively at least, ever since.

Terrorist successes today exist because the initial momentum against terrorism was lost .. AND ALSO .. because other countries sat back and let the US do most of the work.

What news reports are we getting, TODAY, from Iraq ? Is what we hear the product of a sustained anti-terrorist effort, or, its EXACT OPPOSITE ?

Perhaps anyone arguing for the commitment against terrorism to be less than total will be prepared to see an Afghanistan Mark #2 emerge, and further '9/11's' to be the result ??

History teaches what being ignorant about terrorism can lead to. AQ's success on 9/11 was due to our ignorance and not any overwhelming operational expertise on their part. They would not have succeeded on 9/12 with any effort.

But the world did not leave Afghanistan alone, OBL moved in and set up camp. Again their advantage was our ignorance and the "lack of effort/interest" that you point out.

Of course that's all well and good until you think we should move in uninvited to Nigeria to take on Boko Haram.