When Will the War on Terror End?

[True_Avery]

Errr...what do you declare war on then? Verbs? Dangling participles?

Well, it is good to know that my misunderstood saying at least got people off Silentscope's back.

[Windu Chi]

Since there is little chance that terrorism is just going to stop' date=' the war is likely going to last until the u.s decides that it isn't worth fighting anymore. If that's in 2, 10 50 100 or a thousand years, I don't know, but hopefully it won't be too long.[/quote']

 

Try until such a time the sun fissile out.

 

There will always be terrorist to fight here and if it ever happen (our society travel the Milky Way), out there.

Terrorist will follow us wherever we go, as a society.

There will always be people who will make demands for politcal or personal reasons, by taking hostages.

Like al-Qaida has taken hostage of our society's future, with this distracting war.

[Nancy Allen``]

As soon as the Democrats get into power I think we will see a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and the war on terrorism, things such as Afghanistan and the security measures that are in place, scaled right down. That's not to say that with the Democrats in power there won't be efforts to stop terrorism, but I think it will be less proactive, going after terrorists before they attack.

[GarfieldJL]

As soon as the Democrats get into power I think we will see a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and the war on terrorism, things such as Afghanistan and the security measures that are in place, scaled right down. That's not to say that with the Democrats in power there won't be efforts to stop terrorism, but I think it will be less proactive, going after terrorists before they attack.

 

You left out pardoning terrorists just in a bid to get votes in elections.

[Nancy Allen``]

You mean when Osama Bin Laden got off for the terrorist attacks when Clinton was President? That was to appear sympathetic to the Muslims wasn't it? September 11 changed the world, in this day and age showing leniancy would be political suicide.

[Windu Chi]

You left out pardoning terrorists just in a bid to get votes in elections.

If they do that, they will be hang high to the sky.

[Rabish Bini]

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die

 

I hope the war will end soon, as heaps of innocent lives are being lost, for no purpose.

I pray it ends soon.

[Nancy Allen``]

It'll end in November next year, when the Democrats get in. After Bush the chances of them losing are about as good as Indonesia letting Schapelle Corby free.

[Totenkopf]

If they do that, they will be hang high to the sky.

 

Actually, the terrorists in question were Puerto Ricans. It's pretty safe to say that no one has been hanged high to the sky over that so far. Actually, the FBI list of terror groups is pretty ecelectic, covering everything from eco- terrorists to Hamas to skin heads and even militias.

[JediMaster12]

Actually, the FBI list of terror groups is pretty ecelectic, covering everything from eco- terrorists to Hamas to skin heads and even militias.

Well that would make sense wouldn't it? After all we are in a war against terrorism. That must mean that it includes those other groups that have been giving us hell as well though we really don't hear much about it in the news.

[SilentScope001]

Don't forget the Cuban terrorist who hijacked an airplane and is currently seeking asylum in the USA. He is fearful that he might be tortued and beaten if he is handed over to Venuzeula (who is holding him on another charge) and Cuba.

[Pho3nix]

As long as Homo Sapiens lives on this planet war and terrorism will always exist.

[GarfieldJL]

You mean when Osama Bin Laden got off for the terrorist attacks when Clinton was President? That was to appear sympathetic to the Muslims wasn't it? September 11 changed the world, in this day and age showing leniancy would be political suicide.

 

No Clinton didn't pardon him but he called off an operation that would have killed Bin Laden, then there was the incident where Clinton refused to take Bin Laden into custody when another country offered him up.

 

As far as the pardoning terrorists, he did that just before he left office. It's in the book Because He Could by Dick Morris (a Democrat Strategist).

[Totenkopf]

Well that would make sense wouldn't it? After all we are in a war against terrorism. That must mean that it includes those other groups that have been giving us hell as well though we really don't hear much about it in the news.

 

 

Windu seemed to be suggesting that the terrorists in question were of the alqaeda variety (hence his comment about hanging). Though he's free to correct me on this. However, I doubt even Clinton could have gotten away with exonerating alqaeda types even pre-911 (I think those pardons came at the end of his second term). Somehow, though, I doubt the "war on terror" is aimed at most of those other groups.

[Windu Chi]

As long as Homo Sapiens lives on this planet war and terrorism will always exist.

It it will exist when we leave this planet, war is a normal part of civilization.

[mimartin]

No Clinton didn't pardon him but he called off an operation that would have killed Bin Laden, then there was the incident where Clinton refused to take Bin Laden into custody when another country offered him up.

 

Osama bin Laden was offered to Saudi Arabia under the provision that they pardon him in the mid 1990s. The US wanted the Saudis to take him in because it would get him out of Sudan. However, they refused because they had already revoked his citizenship. This was between the years 1996 and 1998, before the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Without bin Laden committing a proven crime against the U.S, I don’t see how we could have taken a Muslim man from a Muslim State without looking like the imperial slime they believe us to be.

 

There are also reports that bin Laden was offered to the US in July 2000. This was after the embassy bombings, but a few months before the attack on the “Cole.” The reports are an Arab country offered the US bin Laden in exchange for a State visit. I question this one for several reasons. First it does not name the Arab country. The most logical is Saudi Arabia. They had the most to gain by getting rid of bin Laden, but it can not be the Saudi’s. Osama bin Laden is a cold blooded murder, but he is not stupid. The only reason he would be allowed home is for something like this. Remember he was already living in Afghanistan at this time. Can’t see it being Pakistan, even now if they handed bin Laden over to the American swine President Musharraf would have moments in office before his head was handed to him. So do we really believe it was either Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan the country willing to hand over bin Laden to Americans. That is what we have to believe and I can’t see a President of the United States visiting any of them at that time. Republicans would have made Clinton into a bigger devil than they already made his wife.

 

There is a question in the fall of 2000 when an unmanned and unarmed spy plane took live photos of a tall man walking at a known al-Qaida camp. Being that Osama bin Laden is a tall man and was in Afghanistan and a member of al-Qaida it had to be him. What if it wasn’t bin Laden? Remember this is before 9/11, before the notion of preemptive strikes. Were we at war at the time with Afghanistan? Did we want to go to war with Afghanistan at that time? I consider American a nation of laws and one of the most fundamental is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a trial. Without absolute proof that the man was Osama bin Laden I wouldn’t have acted either. Some will say he didn’t give the 2973 people on 9/11 a trial, to them I’d say now, do we want to be like him?

 

Since 9/11 the world has changed. We realized the enemy does not fight by any rules and we have had to modify our rules. I do not believe however that we should give up the things that make our country great. Should we give up our fundamental beliefs and laws, then who cares about bin-Laden or any other terrorist because they have already won the war.

[Nancy Allen``]

This is most informative, in that it details the opportunities we could have gone after Bin Laden but didn't, and why we didn't. One of the main problems as have been pointed out is that by taking action against Bin Laden beforehand we woud have caused civil unrest not just with the country he was hiding in, for reasons ranging from not wanting America sticking their nose in their affairs to sympathy and allying with Muslim terrorists. AkumaSF, if you recall the uproar over Australia's interest in Schapelle Corby's case in Indonesia, imagine a worse reaction had anything been done.

 

By the same token there was the option of covert operations. This was before all this took place, but for example Commander Richard Marcinko, who commanded SEAL Team Two and formed SEAL Team Six, was also reportedly in command of a counterterrorist group called Red Cell. Now Red Cell's mission was to act as terrorists and break into military installations, testing their security. But if the stories are to be believed this was a cover for their real mission, the proactive elimination of terrorists despite all the laws that forbid it. Covert operations in foreign countries, such as infiltrating nuclear reactors in France to see if they are breeder reactors, developing waste to use in weapons. Whether or not the stories are true unfortunetly Red Cell was decomissioned in 1995. Could something similar be done, or have been done? Is Clinton to blame for not doing anything? Perhaps, but I think not being allowed by law to act this way is more responsible.

[TK-8252]

The problem with the War on Terror isn't that it's incorrectly named, or that it's too small-scale... it's that it's retarded. Plain and simple. Like any other government-waged war, it's retarded. Usually when a government tries to fight something, it only makes it stronger. Drugs are as available as ever, poverty is as bad as ever, and terrorism is flourishing under George W. Bush.

 

Islamic terrorism is a problem basically created by the United States. During the Cold War, we funded anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, which eventually became al-Qaeda. Then they turned on us when we put our troops in Saudi Arabia to defend the oil there against Saddam Hussein. Couple that with our rabid support of Israel and you get Islamic terrorism, 9/11, and all that jazz. Tada.

[urluckyday]

good to hear that you get "bored" of war. That's the kind of thing America needs...

[urluckyday]

I actually find it sickening that people look at war as almost like a sporting event. Where it is just a spectator sport, and only the professionals "play." War is not a pretty thing, and no war is a "good" war. We remember wars by their outcome. Vietnam was considered a "bad" war to a lot of ignorant people today because America supposedly lost...all wars are bad...sure, stopping the massacre of millions of people is very noble, but it is still a failure of diplomacy, common sense and understanding in terms of world affairs. It truly does sicken me that someone would say that they want to see a "match" between the two biggest powers in the entire world. I'm not saying that we would "lose" the war (which we probably wouldn't), but everyone would instead "lose." It's hard to explain, but believe me...wars are bad, no matter how glorified they are in media.

[Nancy Allen``]

Seeking war is the signature act of tyrants who have no leadership of the people, to be forever condemned by history, and responding to war is the last resort of brave men and women willing to die fighting against such tyranny. A proactive stance against those who seek to harm others should be what everyone strives for, and in the war on terror under such ideals Bush would be in the crosshairs for his invasion of Iraq. For if nothing else it has condemned the country and the world to chaos.

[mimartin]

This is most informative, in that it details the opportunities we could have gone after Bin Laden but didn't, and why we didn't.

 

Just remember the “why we didn't” are my personal views and should not in anyway be considered facts. I took information from varies sources both conservative and liberal including the 911 Commissions Report before making any kind of judgment. Although I am not unbiased as I voted for Clinton twice, but to be fair I also voted for the current President once. For all I know Clinton didn’t do it because he was out womanizing at the time, but Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or anyone else does not know either even if they continue to make that accusation.

 

Part of the problem with the media and politicians for that matter is they give everything in 30 second sound bits instead of giving us the facts. That allows political commentators to spin the sound bits anyway they like.

[JediMaster12]

Part of the problem with the media and politicians for that matter is they give everything in 30 second sound bits instead of giving us the facts. That allows political commentators to spin the sound bits anyway they like.

A sad but true fact. Or we get newcasts like those by FOX that spend more time srguing with each other than reporting the news. Since that is the case, I listen to BBC when I get the chance. Less headaches that way.

[urluckyday]

BBC isn't as "non-bias" as everyone makes it out to be just so you know...

[SilentScope001]

Anyone read Reuters or Associated Press? Those are very useful articles that tell you: "So-and-So blows up a building" without saying, "They are terrorists! Smash! Smash! Smash!"

 

Even then, I'm hearing rumors that Associated Press is pro-Israeli and Retuers is pro-Palestiain, but at least they try to report the news without offering any sort of viewpoint. I rely on them a bit, altough I would rather use Google News and search for other biased informations. Left wing and right wing sources sort of cancel themselves out.