If they win … only our dead will be free.

[MicroBalrog]

So you'd like the US to invade and change the government in every country you consider a threat to Israel's safety?

No. Actually, I want the United States to change Israel's government, first, preferably by threatening it with withdrawal of the FMS funds.

, and no lasting change has ever been imposed by an invading army and foreign attempts at nation-building.

Yes, and Japan, Germany, and Italy are still fascist crapholes... wait. Where were we?

they're the only ones who feel strongly about their national sovereignty.

National sovereignty? I didn't say anything about national sovereignty.

Look: governments - any governments at all - exist only to maintain human rights. Once they begin to violate human rights, they deserve to be destroyedd.

Take the Civil War. Now, we all know the North wasn't precisely motivated by the right causes (they were fighting more to restore thte Union then anything)... but do you seriously think the South shouldn't have been invaded, re-annexed, and the slaves freed?

I would try and kill as many of the bastards as I could until they're all gone from my country. We sort out our own differences, thank you very much.

Look. If the United States were to park it's tanks on the Knesset porch right NOW and say "Hello, you're now the 51st state, please adopt your laws and customs to accomodate the fact that people have rights and stuff. That would mean jury trials, no 'administrative detention', no uncompensated eminent domain, and yes, actualy FREE SPEECH.", I would be the first one to give them flowers.

National sovereignty is not a goal in itself.

Now why do people assume that Middle Easterners have any less intense feelings about their own national sovereignty?

I'm a Middle-Easterner.

 

[Rob P.]

How the heck did this discussion become about parking tanks, thomas payne, and the rest of the mud slinging?

MY POINT was that no matter who has stated the intent in the first post, history tends to show that those words (or some iteration of them) are meant to coerce the populace into doing nothing while bad things are done to "the enemy" in the name of security or freedom.

Today, the "enemy" is terrorists. Yesterday it was Bosnia, Hitler and the Japanese. Before that it was Pancho villa. Prior to that it was the north (or the south depending on your affiliation). Don't forget the Spanish, the British, the Saxons, the Romans, Atilla the hun, Hannibal, and all the rest. I'm POSITIVE they all gave their troops some sort of pep talk that used the sentiments already posted here. And I'm equally as positive that the home-boys told THEIR people the same thing.

The whole deal is meant to tell the ordinary person to duck and cover because the feces is gonna hit the oscillating device and if you don't like it, well, you must be one of the "enemy" also. And in the name of the game the "protectors" of these people are going to have to resort to extreme measures so don't be worried about what you're going to see and hear - it's for your protection.

Those who enjoy quoting obscure historical figures in order to bolster their point need to understand one small thing. Throughout history anyone can find ANYTHING on any subject to support one side or another in a debate. Quoting those sources still doesn't change the fact that the idea being promoted sucks.

The propaganda posted here in the beginning of this thread is bigoted, racist, anti sementic, and just plain wrong. It serves to only provoke conflict where no conflict exists in order to justify it's existence.

 

[raktrak]

Unaffiliated terrorist

How can a terrorist be unaffiliated? Does he act alone using his own money to buy weapons and explosives? I would hope that we never have to fight them in the streets of this country.Someone or country sponsers them. Is it fair to say that a country that consistently spawns terror should be left alone. Someone has to say enough is enough and respond to threats.Most of the time talking to a terrorist won't work.
So what do you do? An ideaolgy maybe hard to destroy,however a German or Japanese person that is old enough to remember the WWII horrors will tell you that overwhelming force can change some peoples ideaolgy.
Why is it not acceptable to keep Iran away from Nuclear capability,or a group of terrorist from a suitcase bomb wherever we need to in the world. Our existance is on the line. So if we can change the world, we shouldn't. Is that what you are saying is the correct course. I always heard that hacking off the big dog can be dangerous. Because we are tolerant of others religion we have made a point to be kind to Muslims here in our country. If my ideaology kills someone with terror practices it has no place in the modern world. It's alright to have intense feeling about things as long as it doesn't kill women and children and innocent decent people of all religions.

 

[Handy]

To have an army one only need money, not sovereign backing. There are a great number of rich people in the middle east, and alot of territory to hide in. It is not difficult to create and run a terrorist system independant of any government.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe one doesn't need sovereighn backing... but the fact is that Al-Quaeda and it's affiliates DO have this backing, and quite a lot of it.


And I am still kind of wondering how one can maintain large armed groups, training camps, and so forth, in a nation for the purpose of attacking another nation without the government in question endorsing the activity.

 

[Handy]

I'm told quite a bit happens in places like Kashmir that no one really knows about.

In a third world country it is difficult to tell a local warlord's army from a foreign training camp. Most of the world is not as tidy as we'd like to think.


How did the IRA operate with modern weapons for so many decades in a first world country? Were the British in on it?

 

[MicroBalrog]

Handy, the IRA was a rather small group, whose entire arsenal was measured in hundreds if not dozens of weapons. Nothing to compare to the Hisbullah with it's tanks, artillery, and Sagger missiles. At the level it's THAT big, it begins to accrue the disadvantages of a real army (for example, you can fight it like one).

 

[Handy]

Alot of people wouldn't call Hisballah a terrorist group. Like the PLO, they are fighting a specific occupying government over land, not idealogy. They operate out in the open in their home territory. The Israelis probably know where those tanks are, and leave them alone. It's a bad example.

Al Queda is thought to be the largest terrorist network on earth, but I bet they don't own a single tank. Tanks and airplanes are not useful to a terrorist - you can't smuggle a tank into a US city.


Good terrorist networks are cellular and compartmentalized. They use small weapons to do maximum damage with surprise rather than force. They don't really need camps, or home countries. They just need people, money and good communications to utilize hidden cells to do evil.

9/11 was the result of good planning on a small level and simple but effective means. No tanks, not even a gun. The first WTC bombing used improvised explosives and a rental truck - all they needed was a chemist and a credit card.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Alot of people wouldn't call Hisballah a terrorist group. Like the PLO, they are fighting a specific occupying government over land, not idealogy. They operate out in the open in their home territory. The Israelis probably know where those tanks are, and leave them alone. It's a bad example.

Both are untrue. The Hisballah fights both the Israelis and the Lebanese, government and civilians. They use MRLS systems and heavy weapons widely, as well as providing weapons and training to the Islamic Jihad (though interestingly not to the Hamas). They want (among other things) to establish Islamic rule over Lebanon.

Al Queda is thought to be the largest terrorist network on earth, but I bet they don't own a single tank.

They did own a large variety of heavy weapons and infrastructure in Afghansitan – training camps, BMP’s, ‘cave’ systems, etc. This costs money.

They don't really need camps, or home countries.

Strange… then the Al-Quaeda is a ‘bad’ terrorist network since it has all those things. Look at 9/11 – this took lots of money and lots of training, some of it apparently before the terrorists even arrived into the US.

 

[NRAhab]

You cannot fight terrorism like you can nation-states? Why?

Because terrorism is an ideal, not a tangible thing. Every terrorist killed in Afghanistan/Iraq dies a martyr for their cause.

No matter how many you kill, more will step up to take their place.

Trust me on this one, kid.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, the terrorist networks in question are not 'ideals'. They are physical, tangible, and most important, structured.

They are not the 'leaderless cells' that frighten political analysts. They depend on money flows, political funding, sanctuaries, training camps, equipment. Take those away and they die.

 

[Handy]

Micro,

The 9/11 attacks involved flight training - that's about it. And they got that here, and probably could have gotten student loans for it.


Terrorizing cowed passengers with razor blades doesn't require a 10 week combat course in Pashmir.


I still say that Hisballah is a paramilitary force, like the Contras or whatever other locally operating group you want to talk about.

Terrorists bring the fight to you, and want political/idealogical change from exterior agencies, not land and government.

The recent habit of calling anyone not on a government payroll with a rifle "terrorist" has got to stop. It just further confuses the issue on how to react to threats. Paramilitary groups require primarily military action. Terror groups require primarily intelligence action.


Al Queda's short term goals are a change in US foreign policy, not the takeover of the US or a Muslim government. Hisballah could give a crap about anyone's foreign policy - they just want to control the lands they live in.

The day Hisballah attacks an Israeli ally (like us) because of our foreign policy support of Israel is the day they become terrorists. And the day Al Queda has enough weapons and people to occupy territory is the day they are no longer just terrorists. But neither has crossed over.


Calling everyone you don't like "terrorist" is just political posturing, not an accurate description of a problem to attack.

 

[NRAhab]

Micro, you just don't get it do you? The central point of my post was that the fundamental nature of terrorism is that you can't fight it like an army. Sure, they may have funding, training camps, and equipment, but it's not in a centralized location. We could vaporize all of Afghanistan, and Al-Quada would still be kicking.

Terrorism itself is based on a belief or an ideal that cannot be stopped with a bullet. As long as people share that belief and ideal, you can't kill them all. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Idealogical change must come from within.

 

[garand_shooter]

We could vaporize all of Afghanistan, and Al-Quada would still be kicking.

That may actually provide motivation to other countries to weed out terrorist organizations.

I'm told quite a bit happens in places like Kashmir that no one really knows about.

If no one really knows about it, who told you?

 

[MicroBalrog]

We could vaporize all of Afghanistan, and Al-Quada would still be kicking.

It is very possible there would arise other terrorist networks, later.

Al-Quaeda, however, would die.

Just like the Montoneros, CRB, RAF - where are they now?

 

[NRAhab]

You really just don't understand, do you? I'm astounded that you actually believe what's coming out of your mouth. I'll make a deal with you, though. We can continue this conversation in about 5 years, hopefully by then you'll have learned enough of the world to be able to formulate a more intelligent opinion.

While you're at it, why don't you join up and go off to Afghanistan, or Iraq and put your money where your mouth is? If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's people who are all for the war, but won't fight it.

 

[DWARREN123]

It is a fight to the death and has been going on longer than most realize!

 

[FirstFreedom]

Well, I think that perhaps it's a legitimate debate as to whether or not we need to wage a "War Against Radical Muslims". But let's not pretend that this is one and the same as the ridiculous unwinnable farce called the "war on terror". The mainstream media should be skinned alive for buying into and using that pure propoganda phrase from the POTUS as if it has meaning.

 

[Redworm]

I kinda liked "Global Struggle Against Extremism" or better yet Jon Stewart's take on the British handling of the matter: The Global Row Against Roustabouts

 

[MicroBalrog]

While you're at it, why don't you join up and go off to Afghanistan, or Iraq and put your money where your mouth is? If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's people who are all for the war, but won't fight it.

Umm. I have been in the military (IDF, incomplete service due to various reasons). Second, I remind you - again - that every citizen of your country already put 'his money' where his mouth is. Remember, taxes pay for the troops.

You really just don't understand, do you? I'm astounded that you actually believe what's coming out of your mouth

You mean all those groups I mentioned were NOT defeated? Strange. Where are they, then? Where are the Weathermen, the SLA, the Fedayyeen, the Zemlya i Volya, the Red Brigades? Ah, I remember. THey were all defeated, crushed by the sheer brute force of those they vainly tried to oppose.