An Observation on Terrorism (AQ)

[shropshire 0]

Hi,
<,But I still think that the war on terror has inhibited OBL and AQ>>
Personally, I'm not convinced. What I do think is that the W-O-T has elevated their profile (and also that of Bush & Blair) much, much more than could have been achieved by their own actions.



it may be worth considering the cost/benifits of the W-o-T compared to say, the fight against cancer, smoking or traffic related deaths in our countries..... many more people die per year from these than from terror attacks and yet there is no longer any political cache.... W-O-T is the political tool of the Now.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm thinking things are getting worse, not better.

I can see how you would. However, you managed to miss my point.

Despite all the attempts AQ have made, only small attacks have succeeded...only limited loss of life has been incurred (although any loss of life is deplorable, make no mistake) whereas their stated intention is to hit, hit hard, kill as many as possible, and terrorize us. To that end, they are not getting better; they are failing miserably. And I'm damned glad.

Frankly, I'm not too terrified. I'm not worried about the guy next to me in the supermarket, I'm not too concerned about the guy at the post office, and I haven't had too many qualms about the people I've shared an airplane with. And I'm average. I worry more about my friends driving to and from the DZ than I do about a terrorist attack...

When seen from that perspective, they are failing, as I said. They are failing. And I think a whole lot of it has to do with the "war on terror," rather than good diplomacy or financial handouts and 'group therapy.' That's one side of things that I wanted to point out...

Ciels-
Michele

The idea that jihad is to kill as many of us "civilised westerners" as possible, in the shortest possible time is not correct. What these fundamentalists are trying to do is not only systematically create terror through attacks as and when they occur, but to revel in the knock on effects - disrupt our very way of life, create economic instability and also, kill us when they can. If 50 people die, but 7 million in London become nervous and somewhat insecure, even while trying their best to get on with things, then they have succeeded.

The idea they are "losing" because they are not hitting us with yearly attacks on the scale of the world trade centre, and killing us in the tens of thousands on a regular basis is naive. Today in London people are going about their businesses as usual but people are nervy, weirded out, rightfully scared and shaken up, and the stock market - while recovering - had £44 billion wiped off in the space of 90 minutes yesterday - all in all not bad for a small terrorist cell, most likely operating under their own guise and motivation. While the tube is up and running, no one is not going to hear the helicopters constantly buzzing around the skies or look at packages and people any less suspiciously today, trust me.
The "war on terror" will IMO be about as successful as the war on drugs. Sure we will make some big catches now and again, but in the big scheme of things, those "big catches" will actually probably be small fry compared to what gets through each year. The terrorists are fundamentalists - no one can reason with them, no one can debate with them. If you kill one, 10 more will sprout to follow their "martyr" brother or sister, and that to me is the most worrying aspect of this whole thing - there will never, as far as i can tell, be a finite end to this whole thing. What can we do? Destroying and incacerating the threat is all we can do, but will that really put a stop to things? I personally don't think so. Like drug dealers and suppliers we take care of, there will be others just waiting in the wings to step into their shoes.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm thinking things are getting worse, not better.

I can see how you would. However, you managed to miss my point.

Despite all the attempts AQ have made, only small attacks have succeeded...only limited loss of life has been incurred (although any loss of life is deplorable, make no mistake) whereas their stated intention is to hit, hit hard, kill as many as possible, and terrorize us. To that end, they are not getting better; they are failing miserably. And I'm damned glad.

Frankly, I'm not too terrified. I'm not worried about the guy next to me in the supermarket, I'm not too concerned about the guy at the post office, and I haven't had too many qualms about the people I've shared an airplane with. And I'm average. I worry more about my friends driving to and from the DZ than I do about a terrorist attack...

When seen from that perspective, they are failing, as I said. They are failing. And I think a whole lot of it has to do with the "war on terror," rather than good diplomacy or financial handouts and 'group therapy.' That's one side of things that I wanted to point out...

Ciels-
Michele

I don't know about you personally, but many people share your belief because they need to believe it. They must believe it. This distortion of reality makes it a less troublesome place and time to live.

I'm guessing that the families of the dead don't really take much solace from their loved ones being killed in smaller attacks.

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[shropshire 0]

Good, succinct answer. 100% agree.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Michele 1]

Quote

This distorts reality and makes it a less troublesome place to live.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Darius11 12]

Quote

While we've not yet won

The war on terror will never be won.

I have said this before the war on terror will be as effective as Nancy Regains war on drugs.

To stop such things you need to change people’s mind not kill all of them off. There will always be more. Maybe in 10 years they won’t be Muslims but others who will be known as terrorist.

We will never be able to stop every one as long as we have our freedom. It is simply impossible to stop attacks. The only way to succeed is to stop the hate.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

One of the things, however, that I believe in most conspiracy theoriyadherents is a singular lack of responsibility, personal or otherwise, which allows someone to take those steps and change things they see as wrong. I've never met a conspiracy theorist who didn't blame everything wrong in their life as someone else's fault, and thus they escape the responsibility for themselves. Furthermore, they scream victim so loudly, and behave in that manner, that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent...

yep. many of the most ardent conspiracy theorists are also under-achievers. The conspiracy theory can be a coping mechanism for that.

They can perceive that others are wealthier & have more control over their own lives than they do. So they deal with it by thinking, "Well, people like me are being kept down by The Man, that's why I'm not getting anywhere in life."

Or you can look at the rich & powerful & say, "Well, they only got that way by being involved with the following unspeakably evil plots: (fill in theory here) which no decent person would do. I am therefore morally superior to those who have more money & power than I do."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[chuteless 1]

The Madrid bombings took 191 lives.

[billvon 2,476]

>It's not Iraq...even though I know you will try to skewer me for not including it.

You can include it or not; your choice. If you exclude it, though, it's somewhat disingenuous to call it a "war on terror." It's a war on Iraqis. If you do call it a "war on terror" then we're fighting terrorists - and they are fighting us.

>They are failing miserably in killing us in the west in enough
>numbers to intimidate us, frighten us, and try to control us by fear.

Is it your belief that some people think that Al Qaeda will "win?" That they will beat the US and take over? That we will wave a white flag and say "OK, we'll do whatever you say?" I don't think anyone sane thinks that. The issue is that they're still around, killing americans and our allies, and are stronger than ever. The more we say "they're failures!" "Mission accomplished!" "They're in their last throes" the more we play into their hands; a discounted enemy is an enemy with the freedom to plan their next attack.

What we have to do is make getting rid of Al Qaeda a priority again. No more extraneous wars, and no more explaining away the attacks as unimportant or "the last throes" of a dying organization. We should take the threat he poses very seriously, and not stop taking it seriously until we have both Bin Laden and enough international support that Al Qaeda can no longer operate freely.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

The Madrid bombings took 191 lives.

Awww Bill, why don't you see it from the bright side? Death figures are going down, it seems. OK, perhaps a little up and down: But isn't that the best signal the war on terror is starting to work? And as long as people are so convinced "that they are failing miserably", very soon no terrorist ever will dare to attack again, right?

And if one day there will be not one single death case in a single terror attack, the war is won! There you have it! said Freddy Mercury...

That's math. Haha.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Today in London people are going about their businesses as usual but people are nervy, weirded out, rightfully scared and shaken up, and the stock market - while recovering - had £44 billion wiped off in the space of 90 minutes yesterday - all in all not bad for a small terrorist cell, most likely operating under their own guise and motivation. While the tube is up and running, no one is not going to hear the helicopters constantly buzzing around the skies or look at packages and people any less suspiciously today, trust me.

It was a very successful attack. Who's going to want to take the train today? A friend in London walked 1.5 hours home yesterday. Today she probably did the same. Or use a cab.

If they had found the attackers, alive or in the ruins, it would help. But right now how can they think anything beyond 'we're sitting ducks?'

A good 'terrorist' attack is not measured just by those killed, but rather by what it does to everyone else. Already having won an election in Spain and getting the Patriot Act passed here, what will they gain in London in front of millions of CCTVs?

The only positive is that so far, they seem very uncreative in their targets. There's more to western society than transportation infrastructure.

[skysquiffy 0]

That's very positive, and probably a good attitude, but terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Go back through history, and look at the number of terrorist acts that occur in a 4 year time period.

When al-qaeda fucks off (or any of the other countless terrorist organizations out there), there'll be another, equally dangerous and determined group to take their place. They'll feel equally justified and righteous about killing.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I think we (we in the global sense) have hindered their activities pretty well.

How do you square that statement with the number of terrorist attacks rising steadily since 2000? (see attached) They're getting better at hitting us, even if each attack kills fewer people.

Bill, how about pointing out the source of that data, along with a geographic representation of where these attacks are happening. You're also forgetting that a lot of the methods being used (in Iraq for example: RC detonated car bombs of non-suicidal bomber's autos) can't be effectively executed elsewhere. Their tradecraft restricts them and makes them easier to identify.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

RC detonated car bombs of non-suicidal bomber's autos) can't be effectively executed elsewhere

???

Where would this not work? Seems to me to be a fairly easy task anywhere there are cars available.

illegible usually

[Michele 1]

Hi, Emma

Quote

That's very positive, and probably a good attitude, but terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Go back through history, and look at the number of terrorist acts that occur in a 4 year time period.

No, I know it did not. But it was 9/11 which brought us (again, globally) to a position wherein we were willing to take some significant measures against terrorism, including the IRA, and other "western" groups (in funding, ease of movement, and so forth.). Thus that is what I was referring to; basically since then, rather than before (I know AQ was active in the 90's - I've been following them since the WTC '93 attack).

And I do also understand the long term view, going back in history and seeing terrorist activities throughout the decades. But again, I was specifically referencing AQ and the battle against them.

And I still think that we've managed to hinder them pretty well. I don't think anyone would disagree that if the hard targets were available, we'd have spectacular attacks on a regular basis. But the hard targets got harder, we got active and froze $$ and made some significant arrests, went into Afghanistan and overturned their government. AQ is no longer the big, bad, scary threat they were on 9/10, 9/11, and 9/12...that's all I'm getting at.

And again, as I stated in my first post, I could be completely wrong; it is how I feel, however.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Quote

That's very positive, and probably a good attitude, but terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Go back through history, and look at the number of terrorist acts that occur in a 4 year time period.

No, I know it did not. But it was 9/11 which brought us (again, globally) to a position wherein we were willing to take some significant measures against terrorism, including the IRA, and other "western" groups (in funding, ease of movement, and so forth.). Thus that is what I was referring to; basically since then, rather than before (I know AQ was active in the 90's - I've been following them since the WTC '93 attack).

And I do also understand the long term view, going back in history and seeing terrorist activities throughout the decades. But again, I was specifically referencing AQ and the battle against them.

And I still think that we've managed to hinder them pretty well. I don't think anyone would disagree that if the hard targets were available, we'd have spectacular attacks on a regular basis. But the hard targets got harder, we got active and froze $$ and made some significant arrests, went into Afghanistan and overturned their government. AQ is no longer the big, bad, scary threat they were on 9/10, 9/11, and 9/12...that's all I'm getting at.

And again, as I stated in my first post, I could be completely wrong; it is how I feel, however.

By "us" you mean the U.S. The rest of the world has been combatting terrorism and it's realities a bit longer than 4 years. In fact, The U.S. has too.

Cut of the head, the body will sprout 5 more. That's terrorism. It's a cancer, there's no curing it. Throw everything you want at it, it's not going away.

[Michele 1]

Quote

By "us" you mean the U.S. The rest of the world has been combatting terrorism and it's realities a bit longer than 4 years. In fact, The U.S. has too.

I am, however, speaking specifically about AQ...who we weren't terribly scared of, according to our actions, through the 90s. They were seen as a threat, but since it hadn't materialized here in the US, it wasn't taken terribly seriously.

I don't mean the US only, either. The Brits didn't get too involved in AQ, not militarily, nor did the Germans, French, Spanish, et cetera, until 9/11. It was on our soil, sure, but it was also a wake up call to the entire western world that if it could happen here, it could happen there. And we (globally) were galvanized by that attack.

The fact that there hasn't been an attack on our soil - although many have been planned and attempted - since 9/11 despite AQ's clear determination to do so, to me, speaks to the efficacy of what the global efforts have yeilded.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

RC detonated car bombs of non-suicidal bomber's autos) can't be effectively executed elsewhere

???

Where would this not work? Seems to me to be a fairly easy task anywhere there are cars available.

Of late, one of the more dynamic MOs of insurgents in Iraq has been to plant explosives on autos at repair shops, and when the owner picks them up and goes along his merry way, the insurgents follow the unsuspecting lad and flip a switch.

It's "simple" in its concept, but harder to pull off elsewhere due to many "western" outfits have more security to protect their clients' property, etc. Sure it could be pulled off, but it would be harder to execute. That's my opinion only.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

I have to disagree a little bit with your original post and the activities of our enemy.

Think of another point in this war on terror. We weren't fully engaged, but in 1993 the WTC attacks killed "only" 5 or 6 people.

If the trucks loaded with explosives were moved to a slightly different position underneath the towers, the towers would have collapsed and the death toll would have been over 10,000. Remember, the attack took place mid-day, the area was packed with people. That was the outcome the terrorists were looking for.

London was similar, it was "morning" drive, and it appears that these explosives were "planted". AQ is certainly positioning itself to improve itself over Madrid on 3/11. What they won't escape are the 200,000 cameras that are installed all over the city.

I believe that AQ (and assoc. scum) are aiming high, but are unable to spend the years at a time to plan such elaborate attacks as they are being chased down in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Having written that, I too believe we are ruining their "fun" but also believe we need to keep the fire running.

Hope you're well BTW...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skysquiffy 0]

Quote

Quote

***By "us" you mean the U.S. The rest of the world has been combatting terrorism and it's realities a bit longer than 4 years. In fact, The U.S. has too.

I am, however, speaking specifically about AQ...who we weren't terribly scared of, according to our actions, through the 90s. They were seen as a threat, but since it hadn't materialized here in the US, it wasn't taken terribly seriously.

I don't mean the US only, either. The Brits didn't get too involved in AQ, not militarily, nor did the Germans, French, Spanish, et cetera, until 9/11. It was on our soil, sure, but it was also a wake up call to the entire western world that if it could happen here, it could happen there. And we (globally) were galvanized by that attack.

The fact that there hasn't been an attack on our soil - although many have been planned and attempted - since 9/11 despite AQ's clear determination to do so, to me, speaks to the efficacy of what the global efforts have yeilded.

The western world has been awake, aware and dealing with these acts for many years. 9/11 was the U.S. wakeup call.

The name of the group is irrelevant. They're interchangable. Al-qaeda, al-qaeda in Europe, Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea. All that matters is that at any given time, there are countless groups, cults, sects, that feel that the best way to make their point is with a very loud bang.

Relative silence from a terrorist org doesn't necessarily mean defeat. On the contrary, it could mean lots and lots of planning.

• Quote

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I don't mean the US only, either. The Brits didn't get too involved in AQ, not militarily, nor did the Germans, French, Spanish, et cetera, until 9/11.

Not true. The "Al Qaeda" network became notorious in the late 90's. But there were other networks (some of them now attached to Al Qaeda) active prior to that, and by active I mean conducting terrorist acts. Do a search for "terrorism Gia Paris 1994" or "terrorist bombing Paris 1986", etc... These are only some of the French "incidents", since they are the ones I am familiar with (I was in Paris in the late summer of 1986 when bombs were exploding in the subway and trashcans in public squares). England, Spain etc... had their own "incident" as well. Counter-terrorism cells have been active (and to a certain degree successful) in different parts of the world prior to 9/11. Just because it doesn't get publicized here (or in general) does not mean it is not actively working.
BTW: Moussaoui was red flagged by the French counter-terrorism forces, passed on to the US when he flew here. The fact that he was ignored until after 9/11 is a major oversight on the part of some members of the US counter-terrorism agencies.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Skyrad 0]

Son't forget the tens of thousands of Souls that have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and others in Indonisia. What happened here in London was nasty but its what the Iraqis and the Afghans live with every day.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[chuteless 1]

That was just an observation. However, if you think America will win the war on terrorism, it will be only in your dreams

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

That was just an observation. However, if you think America will win the war on terrorism, it will be only in your dreams

Don't get me wrong, it's not me thinking the US (or other parties) will win the war on terrorism, there are others dreaming about it - I tried being sarcastic, as it's just wishful thinking that simply by counting on a decreasing rate of dead bodies, there is any success in "winning a war against terror" That sounds too naive

(Blame that misunderstanding on my poor English )

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

And I still think that we've managed to hinder them pretty well.

alright "you" have "hindered them pretty well" in achieving their goals


jeeeeeezuz WAKE UP! turn off FOX-tv and go to a de-brainwashing facility. and don't forget to take off them pink-colored glasses.

terrorists operating on a worldwide base are by any means more successful than you can imagine in your little corner of the world – even if this little corner is situated somewhere in BIG u.s.

just one point of how successfull they are: you've got things like a department of homeland security, your laws have been enforced dramatically eating away tons of "your constitutional rights" and you still applaud.

we've got the same bullshit developing over here in europe too.

and then the great michele turns up and says "I think we are quite successfull in "our" war on terror"


"You" wouldn't need a "War on terror" if "you" weren't so busy producing new terrorists all over the place

before this gets me to mad - over & out

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666