Can America finish terrorism alone ? - Page 2

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by aneeshm
The more they are antagonised , the more they will retaliate , as they have no other way of striking back.

I agree we are in something of a catch-22. If we do nothing they attack; if we do something they attack. The only real solution, absolute crushing brutality a la the Mongols or other ancient or medieval empires, isn't acceptable in the modern world so we are stuck striking down the worst offenders and attempting to persuade people away from religious fundamentalism.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 13:38

The closest thing that I could see for you that is similar is Pakistan government-supported terrorism.

Al Qaeda was like an expeditionary force of some 5,000 Arab soldiers. It required logistics, funding and fund-raising, recruiting, sophisticated planning, training, compartmentalized information, and extensive liasion with governments and other terrorist groups.

Do you have any similar terrorist organizations in India?

Arrian · September 9, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

People are scared when the anniversary of 9/11 comes around , no ?

Maybe. No one I know.

-Arrian

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by aneeshm
In a span of fifty years , we have lost over a million , I repeat a million people .

I doubt the million figure is just from terrorist actions alone. No doubt it also includes the war dead from the three wars India and Pakistan have fought since Independence from the UK in 1949.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Do you have any similar terrorist organizations in India?

India has a number of smaller and less well organized terrorist groups. Nearly all of them say they are fighting for Kashmir.

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 13:46

11 September was also the date Aliente was overthrown in Chile. Ironic that.

Besides that with the US support to Pakistan, you have new troubles I think.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 13:46

Oerdin: My argument is that because they are less well organized and smaller groups, they are much less vulnerable to traditional military action. Al Qaeda was bigger and was reasonably vulnerable to traditional military action (or at least action, US style). They were also potentially a lot more lethal.

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 13:58

The smaller they are , the harder they are to fight . And Al-Qaeda is still alive and functioning , just more covertly . Nobody knows how many operatives they have in the US , just waiting for the word of command .

Yes , people start to get scared not for themselves , but uncertain as to the general level of safety in a country .

Quote:

Well USA is said deserved it.
What have you done?

We have done nothing except fooloshly trust the United Nations . The ceasefite thay mandated was the main cause of the stalemate that has been there for the past fifty years . No dispute , no oppression (Kashmir , in fact , elected to join us ) . We are also hated for our democracy and progress (we are much , much better than most nations of the Middle East and Pakistan in terms of personal freedom ) .

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Do you have any similar terrorist organizations in India?

Yes , we have many (the lashkar-e-toiba , jaish-e-mohammed , to take two of the largest) .

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 14:02

Could I ask you, because I don't know, if the population in Kashmir is mainly muslim or Hindu?

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 14:07

Even though they are mainly Muslim , the sentiment is pro-indian (they have seen what both nations have to offer ) . To give an example , cable TV operators in Pakistan are on strike , protesting their government's decision to ban Indian channels for vulgarity (Family soaps are vulgar , Baywatch is just pure fun for the family , no ? ) . The figures , don't forget , also take into account the huge losses of counterinsurgency operations .

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 14:11

Yes, I bet they being muslim is the perfect "excuse" for the Pakistani dictatorship to want to grab the land.
Sounds a lot like Cyprus actually where the turkish cypriotes themselves demonstrated in the streets calling to Greece and the EU to save them.

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 14:17

But the point is , they dont want to join Pakistan . Thay want , in fact notning more than peace , and India is the better choice for the future , as thay will get peace either way (either through joining Pakistan or India) .

Back on topic , should the USA be supporting such regimes ? Is it in their own long-term interests to pursue this unilateral policy of supporting some dictators , deposing others , and not giving a damn to so many democracies (with us being the biggest , by the way) .

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 14:20

About your first point I agree. that's what I saying too about the turkish cypriots.

About the US, that's US. I'm sure you know what it's about. If not you'll soon find out.

And to your question. No ofcourse it's not right to support the Pakistani dictatorship while saying it wants to combat international terrorism.
It would be very funny if human lives weren't being lost because of this.

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 14:31

What is it about ? The oil ? The poll ratings (my money's on this ) ? Having a second base in the region (other than Israel) ? The US does not realise that they creating , for every minuthe they stay in Iraq , another terrorist . The lives lost are not just your problem . They are ours too . But mark my words , the US will suffer horribly for it's policies if it doesn't change them soon enough . Dubya will go down in history as a power-crazed pupped in the hands of his advisors , who let terrorism become a bigger problem . The only way of combating terrorism by brute force is through covert operations , NOT through a set of hugely publicised wars . Had this huge ruckus not been created , the Al-Queda leadership would have been easier to fing and destroy .

Arrian · September 9, 2003, 14:31

I don't think it is, no. Unfortunately, however, dealing with dictators is required if we're going to have diplomatic relations with a huge chunk of the world. I'd rather we didn't put up with them, but when a politician is under enormous pressure to produce results - fast (as in, elections coming!), they will often make a choice based not on long-term viability, but on short-term expedience.

Dealing with dictators does convey a short-term advantage at times: a dictator, if personally swayed by whatever we're offering, can usually go and do what we want him to do, without slogging his way through annoyances like a legislature, independent judiciary, etc.

I'm not saying it's right, or even preferable. But I see how it happens. I can see why we sucked up to Musharaff (sp?). Bush & Co. had to show results in Afganistan, and Pakistan was the key to that. So we cozied up to the dictator... again. *sigh*

-Arrian

aneeshm · September 9, 2003, 14:34

Now I'm retiring for the night (here , it's midnight) . I'll see how this develops .

Arrian · September 9, 2003, 14:35

*waves*

Sleep well.

-Arrian

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 14:40

Quote:

Originally posted by aneeshm
What is it about ? The oil ? The poll ratings (my money's on this ) ? Having a second base in the region (other than Israel) ? The US does not realise that they creating , for every minuthe they stay in Iraq , another terrorist . The lives lost are not just your problem . They are ours too . But mark my words , the US will suffer horribly for it's policies if it doesn't change them soon enough . Dubya will go down in history as a power-crazed pupped in the hands of his advisors , who let terrorism become a bigger problem . The only way of combating terrorism by brute force is through covert operations , NOT through a set of hugely publicised wars . Had this huge ruckus not been created , the Al-Queda leadership would have been easier to fing and destroy .

about their support to pakistan i think they needed a base to bomb afganistan and they always have a tendency to go for dictatorships. i dont know why.

in any case, I see you maybe dont know what the US is yet. unfortunately i cant give you a seminar about US foreign policy now

so i bit you goodnight and say I'm pleased to meet you.

Al'Kimiya · September 9, 2003, 14:43

yes, but america is too concerned about public relations to do it

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Could I ask you, because I don't know, if the population in Kashmir is mainly muslim or Hindu?

In 1949 the population of Kashmir was mostly Hindu though 50+ years of economic stagnation (mostly due to muslim terrorist attacks), a high muslim birth rate, and Hindu emmigration (both due to the muslim violence but also because the rest of India offers a higher per capita income) means that today the population is over wellingly muslim and radicalized.

The election our Indian Friend refered to occured when the Korean war was still going on.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 15:03

Quote:

Back on topic , should the USA be supporting such regimes ? Is it in their own long-term interests to pursue this unilateral policy of supporting some dictators , deposing others , and not giving a damn to so many democracies (with us being the biggest , by the way) .

If you're referring to Pakistan, it was touch-and-go for a while. On September 11 and September 12, 2001, Pakistan was given a choice--regime change in Pakistan or its full support in the war on terror. Regime change in Pakistan is a muddled proposition at best, considering that it has nukes.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 15:06

...

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 15:11

before i go. the US has no problems working with anybody if it is to further its interests. hopefully its tight spot, having to cooperate with a terrorism sponsoring dictator, will have pissed India enough to join the waves against her. Not that the pakistani people are with her.

and contrary to what DanS said, the US has no intention of toppling the dictatorship there. she has no interest in doing it. they dont care if you die by the thousands due to pakistani terrorism, unless, of course, you make them care. anyway, dont take my word for it. you have saw and you will see.

bottom line they dont care about international terrorism, they dont follow any principles of human rights and democracy, they just want to keep their own people safe and keep pushing their interests, whatever the cost to the others, unless it becomes too high for them as well.

Lefty Scaevola · September 9, 2003, 15:13

"Can America finish terrorism alone "

Not the whole world can 'finish it'. The USA can certainly weaken it severely, and motivate the less irrational among its practitioners to attack weak pacifists rather that martial powers.

Harovan · September 9, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
True but to be honest there are 30 other countries contributing forces right now with hopes of others arriving in the coming months. Still, we'd do better if countries such as India, Turkey, China, Russia, Germany, and France joined in.

Germany has thousands of troops in Afghanistan and literally half of its fleet around the horn of Africa. I think that's a considerable support in your war on terror. You are probably mixing your so called war on terrorism with your conquest of Iraq, which has next to nothing to do with terrorism, even if your White House moron keeps telling it.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 15:14

Who's the settler?

DanS · September 9, 2003, 15:16

One thing that is sort of ironic. Many dictatorships are helped by the war on terrorism. These sorts of folks are dangerous to everyone, including dictators.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Who's the settler?

You're right. Never mind.

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by aneeshm
Watching the news today , I just had to post this .

How many here actually believe that America can go against terrorists alone ? How many people think that war after war after war is the solution to the terrorism menace .

Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .

Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ? We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .

In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone . You cannot enlist support by invading anyone . Only through a global consensus of all affected nations , not a Coalition of the Willing (or America's puppets) , can this be contained . And the faster Americans realize this , the better for them and the lives of theis troops .

Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

I am starting to get the feeling that Europe does not take terrorism seriously.