Some thoughts on the War on Terror

[rory_20_uk]

Well, putting aside the fact that UK or US citizens (not to mention French or German citizens) may create/perpetuate the problems themselves, the very point of the War on Terror was just that: to respond to attacks and deal with the problems created by previous US-(and other)-backed Saudi et al policies.

I think that it was to respond to attacks. I don't think that anywhere near enough thought went into dealing with the problems regardless of who caused them. Stringing oneself out over two countries might appear to ensure attacks aren't going to hit them Mainland, but the fallacy of this is pretty obvious - Afghan hill-men don't even blend into the deepest, darkest parts of the Southern USA. There are two clear different subsets of terrorists and a war of attrition against one isn't going to suddenly stop the other.

I don't think that the obsession with Palestine is the main causus belli either. I don't think that most of the protagonists really give a damn about Palestine (although Israel is a different matter). It's the Counter-Reformation all over again - it's against ways of life that differ from what groups think should be. and only their extermination is good enough.

[al Roumi]

I don't think that the obsession with Palestine is the main causus belli either. I don't think that most of the protagonists really give a damn about Palestine (although Israel is a different matter). It's the Counter-Reformation all over again - it's against ways of life that differ from what groups think should be. and only their extermination is good enough.

Their certainly is a school of thought that the Islamic world is currently going through something akin to Christendom's reformation, but I'm personaly wary of ascribing too much of a parrallel between Christian and Islamic culture in this way -not least becasue of the implied delay (a consideration which will no doubt draw scorn from our friendly pinko fascists ). However, I would dearly love to think it's only a matter of time before we all relax into the comfortable liberty of secular democracies -whether originaly Muslim or Christian.

Another theory is that there have been many cycles of growth, progress and decline during Islam's history -and that this might just be another transformative phase. not sure I like the look of what might come out of this if it means more fundamentalism though. Were things to turn out that way, I might find myself -in 20 or so years time, feeling abit like Eric Hobsbawm in the collapse of his ideology and hope therein. Obviously I'm unlikely to be able to ever draw any other parralels between myself and Hobsbawm but hey-ho.

[Strike For The South]

Because an Independent Tibet is a bastion of economic and political freedom

Other than the fact you can't find it on a map.

Americas handiling of terrorism has been misguided, ill concived, ill advised and peppered with to much of an us vs them mentality but to completly take violence off the table renders America useless

[Vladimir]

Tibet in the future:

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Informati...eutral_Planet/

[Tuuvi]

Welcome to the backroom (I think)!

Such an approach would arguably leave the President in dereliction of his primary duty to defend the American people. Now, does that mean that America must invade backwater nations across the globe to defend itself? No, that has proved to be a less-than-effective strategy. And it may even be beneficial to reduce our military presence in the Middle East that still lingers from the First Gulf War, especially in Saudi Arabia. However, the President, and the various defense agencies under his control, have a responsibility to pursue some strategy in an effort to proactively disrupt and destroy these groups.

How would the President defend your proposed course of action to the American people, especially in the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack?

Also, given Tibet's situation, I'm not sure they are a great example of successful nonviolence.

Thank you. Actually I'm not new to the backroom, I just had my username changed, however I haven't been a very active poster.

I'm not trying to say that the US should do nothing to fight terrorism, I'm just starting to think that maybe invading Afghanistan was not the best way to respond to 9/11. I think that maybe the US would've been better off focusing on boosting internal security. But as alh_p pointed out, this has its own setbacks.

As for the Tibet issue, I'm not trying to draw comparisons or anything, that's just what got me thinking about the war on terror.