Six years on - are you happy with the response?

[Emperor Benedictine]

I don't see that invading Iraq constituted a response to 9/11 at all and I don't see any reason to think it will make us less vulnerable to similar atrocities in future. From the perspective of stamping out terrorism one only needs to look at the situation in Iraq today to see the flaw in that plan. So another unsatisfied non-US citizen.

[Tas]

Not happy.

Why the united states government believed it could "war" on terrorism is beyond me, their good friend Israel has been trying to root out what i would call "domestic" terrorism for decades using pretty much the same tools of war that the US government sicked on The Taliban and their terrorist buddies, along with a more intelligent, covert approach.

I guess they didn't get the idea, but they can twist the truth of their "success" for as long as the conventional means of thwarting terrorist attacks.. the cia and fbi.. can hold the towel heads at bay.

History is in favor of the "terrorists", just a mere 60 years ago, French, polish, British and Dutch terrorists went up against the Germans, whom while defeated eventually were no fools. The Gestapo got many, the Nazi’s killed their relatives and friends when they were elusive.. but they were never defeated.

9/11 was a terrible day, but it could have been any other day.. years before or later. Osama was around for a long time before and maybe even lives now as Kiowa helicopters try to find him. The supposed mastermind, catch him and the terrorists will just give up. Such a nice dream isnt it?

Yeah, no-one thought of attacking a superior enemy in suicide aircraft before. Personally i believe the only reason 9/11 has not repeated itself is because of the more passive defenses, and a glimmer of fear and compassion in the heads of those bearded men.

All it takes to become a martyr:
-Google
-house hold chemicals
-conviction

Good luck calling in an airstrike on that.



Good ol uncle America keeping us all safe, doing it all to make the world a better place. Why would a sane person believe this when a force deployment the fraction in size of what is stationed in Iraq and afghanistan could easily save ten time the amount of people that died when the towers fell.

[Chemix2]

There's a bit of a difference between the resistance fighters of France and friends vs terrorists who kill thousands of innocents to make political statements and/or express rage/hatred and/or influence political decisions.

Iraq (the war there) did a lot of good, and a lot of bad; it didn't have a great deal with domestic threats to us, but it had... something to do with terrorism towards a US ally.

[Tas]

A bit yes, but their conviction and persistance is all to similar.

[Mr. Matt]

Terrorism has always existed and it always will. There will always be people willing to kill and die for what they believe, no matter how stupid that belief is nor how brutal and unnecessary their actions, and it's somewhat daft to believe that you could 'declare war' on something like that. As a result of that, the United States could continue to wage this 'war' of theirs for another thousand years and still be no closer to eradicating it. With an utterly impossible goal in mind, is it even possible to 'satisfy' anybody?

[Chemix2]

I don't recall that many suicide bombings in WWII on the European front

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Mr. Matt

Terrorism has always existed and it always will. There will always be people willing to kill and die for what they believe, no matter how stupid that belief is nor how brutal and unnecessary their actions, and it's somewhat daft to believe that you could 'declare war' on something like that. As a result of that, the United States could continue to wage this 'war' of theirs for another thousand years and still be no closer to eradicating it. With an utterly impossible goal in mind, is it even possible to 'satisfy' anybody?

I don't think the war on terrorism is so much a war against terrorism in general as much as it is a war against organized terrorism. Yes individuals will always likely have reason to become terrorists, but you can reduce their numbers and separate them by enough distance(and personal differences for that matter) to make organization impossible for them, which would greatly reduce the damage a terrorist could do.

Not saying the war on terrorism is being effective, but there are some parts about it I agree with, and in general I think the concept is a decent idea that needs better execution.And I took "Satisfied" to mean "content" not necessarily happy.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

I don't think the war on terrorism is so much a war against terrorism in general as much as it is a war against organized terrorism. Yes individuals will always likely have reason to become terrorists, but you can reduce their numbers and separate them by enough distance(and personal differences for that matter) to make organization impossible for them, which would greatly reduce the damage a terrorist could do.

Not saying the war on terrorism is being effective, but there are some parts about it I agree with, and in general I think the concept is a decent idea that needs better execution.And I took "Satisfied" to mean "content" not necessarily happy.

If you have enough people believing in something that passionately, they'll organise. It's happened throughout history, and it'll continue to do so, and the fact that terrorists are often just ordinary people living ordinary lives until they blow (literally) makes it all the harder to track them down. I don't see how invading countries at random will ever change that - the terrorists are in our countries as well. It's the changes that are made at home, by the government and the police force, that make the difference, as we've seen from all the foiled terrorist plots that have taken place over the years. I'm of the opinion that the only reason that our soldiers are out there, treading the sands of far away countries, is so that our governments can be seen to be on the offensive in the wake of such massive attacks; an enormous, blood-soaked PR campaign if you will. Only, it seems to have backfired a little in that department...

[Tas]

Originally Posted by Chemix2

I don't recall that many suicide bombings in WWII on the European front

Semantics really, whether someone hoses down a Mercedes carrying Nazi officials with a Sten, knowing he'll probably end up dead. Or run his car into an armored vehicle and blow himself up, its all an act of resistance.

[Chemix2]

We went to Iraq because

1. We (the US gov) felt guilty about not doing this back in Gulf War 1
2. A War Time economy "would" bring us out of a coming recession
3. A little oil "would" bleed our way and make the campaign almost if not completely costless
4. Saddam Hussein was funding terrorist attacks against our ally Israel (excuse 2) by paying the families of suicide bombers $15,000 for their lost love one's efforts
5. 5 nations: Russia, Britain, Germany, Israel and of course the US, were told by the intelligences agencies of said nations that Saddam had WMDs (excuse 2)
6. 270,000 Iraqis were brutally tortured to death by Saddam during his rein (excuse 3; hence Operation Iraqi Freedom)

Note when I say "would" in quotes as such, it means the US government thought it "would"

Ultimately whether or not the reasons are moral doesn't matter a great deal to me so long as the Iraqi people are no longer facing brutal torture on a massive scale for the pleasure of some sick bastard. I would rather be shot to death at random than hauled by the police to a line up to have my feet whipped till they were mangled flesh and I could not walk if I even lived through the experience, for nothing.