Al-qaeda: Still A Threat?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
<div class="IPBDescription">The results of the War on Terror</div> This place has been getting too quiet. So lets get some lively debate happening!
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7890128%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>Al Qaeda behind Turkish bombings</a>
It's been over two years since the events of September 11 and the beginning of the "War of Terror". Since S-11, two invasions, of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been carried out, and hundreds of terrorist suspects arrested in various countries across the world.
Yet looking back over the past months, one must start to question whether we're getting anywhere. The Italian police barracks in Iraq demolished, the UN Iraq headquaters bombed, Saudi Arabia rocked by bombing attacks, Turkish synagogues attacked, US soldiers suffering daily attacks in Iraq. Every day we look at the news and see some other attack, be it a sniper in Baghdad or a car bomb in Riyadh.
So we ask ourselves. We've spend billions fighting this war. We've invaded two nations. Arrested hundreds. But for what?
Certainly the terrorist threat has not diminished. Just because there hasn't been another attack on the scale of S-11 doesn't mean it isn't possible, and the attacks that have continued to occur seem to indicate that there remain commited individuals willing and able to harm the US and it's allies.
Certainly Al Quaeda isn't gone, and they remain a potent threat. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Even if he is dead though, others have taken over the organisation.
Your thoughts please.
Edited mistake. Thanks Urza <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7890128%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>Al Qaeda behind Turkish bombings</a>
It's been over two years since the events of September 11 and the beginning of the "War of Terror". Since S-11, two invasions, of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been carried out, and hundreds of terrorist suspects arrested in various countries across the world.
Yet looking back over the past months, one must start to question whether we're getting anywhere. The Italian police barracks in Iraq demolished, the UN Iraq headquaters bombed, Saudi Arabia rocked by bombing attacks, Turkish synagogues attacked, US soldiers suffering daily attacks in Iraq. Every day we look at the news and see some other attack, be it a sniper in Baghdad or a car bomb in Riyadh.
So we ask ourselves. We've spend billions fighting this war. We've invaded two nations. Arrested hundreds. But for what?
Certainly the terrorist threat has not diminished. Just because there hasn't been another attack on the scale of S-11 doesn't mean it isn't possible, and the attacks that have continued to occur seem to indicate that there remain commited individuals willing and able to harm the US and it's allies.
Certainly Al Quaeda isn't gone, and they remain a potent threat. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Even if he is dead though, others have taken over the organisation.
Your thoughts please.
Edited mistake. Thanks Urza <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
The targets in Turkey were synagogues, not mosques
*end nitpicking mode*
The nature of international terror is that it is international (duh). That means that invading countries does not work, especially when the organisation is as decentralised as Al Quaeda is. That would be like invading the US to destroy MacDonalds.
I am afraid that the so-called "War on Terror" has created more enemies rather than it has stopped.
While we're at it, lets stop the war on drugs. Lets stop trying to find murderers and rapists too, we don't seem to be making any real headway!
i agree w/ the second post. we have made more enemies than i can count. and i can count REALLY high.
While we're at it, lets stop the war on drugs. Lets stop trying to find murderers and rapists too, we don't seem to be making any real headway! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you agree that the so-calle"War on Terror" has not been effective in the past. Why do you think it will be effective in the future?
Because each new victory will only create more enemies.
Each defeat will show our weakness and create more enemies
While we're at it, lets stop the war on drugs. Lets stop trying to find murderers and rapists too, we don't seem to be making any real headway!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say we should stop? No. Did I say there was no threat? Hell no.
There is no question that terrorism is a threat that must be combatted.
What I am asking is what exactly have we accomplished? The deeper issue is: are we fighting this war the right way? Are the tactics we're using having the desired result?
What should coalition do about it? I guess there's nothing much to do anymore. The solution would have been <b>not give terrorists a reason to hate</b> in the first place. Now how many people would be willing to kill themselves to hurt a country that hasn't hurt them in a long time and has been living quietly?
Sweet, this new keyboard totally onwzors <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
While we're at it, lets stop the war on drugs. Lets stop trying to find murderers and rapists too, we don't seem to be making any real headway! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, while we are at it, lets quit researching AIDS, Cancer, or other deadly dieseases.
I'm sure all problems will solve themselves.
I'm glad there's another human in the world who thinks like me.
NOTE TO THE STUPID:
Both me and Burncycle are being cynical, sarcastic, and vindictive people who are proving the pointlessness of this thread and the article.
Basically, we've done some work on the problem, but its far from over. The most dangerous thing we can do right now is give up and act like we've won. The War on Terr </bush> will still be going on during the Rice presidency (A guy can dream, can't he?).
Interesting topic Ryo.
I think something more flexible than a "Fine, if you don't like it, I'm taking my ball and going home" philosophy is necessary here.
I guess we can say things are going well in areas where attacks do not occur and not going well in places where they do. (hmm. "thank you Capt Obvious" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Wanders in*
Whoops, wrong forum
*wanders out*
As a real-life example, how many terrorist activities have you heard about in say..... Sweeden?
There will always be terrorists as long as any group of people feel they are unfairly treated. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
An example I believe I heard on this very board (props to whoever originally came up with this):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your country is invaded. The attackers move their civilians in to occupy, so you organise a resistance to kill as many soldiers as you can, so they will surely pull their civillians out. You are a freedom fighter, you are a hero.
Your country is invaded. The attackers move their civilians in to occupy, so you organise a resistance to kill as many civillians as you can (as they are the easier target), so they will surely pull their soldiers out. You are a terrorist. You deserve to die.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*goes back to the shelter of off-topic where people don't use such big words*
Clearly we must destroy the "oppressors".
Not that all Iraqi terrorists have such noble goals
Gasp! I kinda agreed with Jammer until here, and the earth returned to circle the sun. Now I could be a naive idealistic brat, but that just sounds wrong. I know how world works in reality and I know there's nothing we can do here in the discussion forums, but assuming we are talking mostly big IFs and from moralistic point of view, I'd like to ask why do we have the right to declare our way better?
Currently it seems like the survival of the fittest. That's like it is in the real world, always has been and always will be, but since we are pretending like people are good and want to do the right thing, shouldn't we, who favor democracy let other people decide for themselves? It's not democracy if it's forced upon people.
So looking from evolutionary point of view: you are right. Strong wins, weak goes down. Others keep their pie holes shut. It's the order of the universe and we shouldn't fight it.
From philosophical/moralistic point of view: you are wrong. We should all sing happy songs and let people do what they want.
Because we are discussing here from the latter point of view(there's not much to discuss in the former, it just happens), I would have to disagree with you. Did everyone understand me? No? Good <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
1: Why do you call Afghanistan as the epicentre of international terror?
2: If you call a dictator who had his army destroyed ten years ago a threat, yes, "we" did
3: Ehh... no
4: What do you mean by "fundamentalist culture"? The islam, by nature is not fundamentalistic (although I would not call the Islam a culture either)
5: Why do you think our way of life is better? I'm afraid that a presidential democracy will not work at all at such a segmented country, and capitalism isnt good either when the countries income is mostly based on a single product (oil)
6: You do not convince countries by throwing boms. It might be better to point to a secular democracy like turkey
The problem is that there's a big bunch of culturally and religionally diverse people living in the same area. Only way to make them co-operate is through force. Just like Saddam did.
I'm eager to see how this works out. Fake democracy for couple of years until it starts to boil again but no one cares because it has no news value anymore.
I'm eager to see how this works out. Fake democracy for couple of years until it starts to boil again but no one cares because it has no news value anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not entirely true. As Lijphart's excellent study on consensus-democracies pointed out, democracy IS possible in ethnically and culturally divided countries, if only the subgroup's elites work together. Just like in India, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
Then again Swiss' didn't have a habit of piercing their neighbour with spears and putting their heads in to a stake. So it's kinda pointless to compare economically stable countries that emerged in to democracy of their own will pretty early on and a country with economy depending on one product only and a violent history of civil wars.
It's not impossible, just difficult.
It's not impossible, just difficult. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the oil would not be that much of a problem if only it would stay nationalized. As far as the civil wars are concerned, could you name a few that took place during the last century between different groups? (so excluding the anti-saddam uprisings)
I'm not talking about the last century. There probably weren't any because some dictator kept those people straight <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> All I'm saying, democracy can't be applied so easily everywhere. Even if it works with us doesn't mean it works for others. We agree, yes?
And I'm going to bed now. I have this bad habit of getting in to discussions only after nightfall. To be continued...
And I'm going to bed now. I have this bad habit of getting in to discussions only after nightfall. To be continued... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Democracy is caused by a variety of reasons, varying from the literacy in a country to whether or not has conscription,from infrastructure to economy. On the whole, countries in the Middle East are not that favourable to democracy :/.
We're getting pretty much offtopic here
So, we agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We're getting pretty much offtopic here<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True dat. Last 10 posts are our dialog. Someone else could throw in his opinion to keep the thread alive <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There, that's my opinion.
The answer: No.
The way America is going about its war on terrorism is completely wrong. You dont just aim for the head man, thee are tens if not hundreds of people willing to take his place, and they may be a much bigger threat. You combat thse things through education, getting rid of the inbred rock solid prejudiced hate that people have for you. Wars on terrorism aren't won with guns and bombs, they are won with love, kindness and compassion.
All that America is doing is just digging a bigger hole, and then asking the rest of the western world to help it get out. It's not going to work. When digging holes, you eventually reach rock bottom, and then where do you go?
/hippy Dread
oh wait, yes it does. Our PM is the president's sex slave...
I'm not saying the US should spen all its budget on fluffy "uncle Sam" teddy bears to give out to Afghanistan pre-schoolers, they have got too many enemies to do that. I am saying that, with their current approach, they are making things worse, and should quit and pull out of Iraq yesterday. And then send money. Whatever you Americans (George Bush) decide to do, spend your own money (i was going to say something else, but decided it would be insensitive), dont drag the rest of the world into your little power show.