Business as usual

**Franconicus** · 07-08-2005, 15:45

Now one day after the terror act in London the British show that they are not willing to let terrorists change their way of living. Hooray to the British! This is the adequate way to react.

In the org I see business as usual: dogmatic discussions left against right, US against the rest of the world. This is not an adequate way to react. Now it is time to combine our forces and to strike back. Let us not discuss if Iraq war was right or wrong. It is a fact. It is time to reconsider. The Americans should reflect if all of their positions are right and what they could change to step up to Europe without loosing their focus. The Europeans should think how they could increase their efforts to fight terrorists. Both should think how they could combine their efforts and increase the efficiency.
The fight has just begun. The enemy is nor the US neither Europe. It is AQ. It is time to take on the fight.

What do you think?

**caesar44** · 07-08-2005, 15:54

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Now one day after the terror act in London the British show that they are not willing to let terrorists change their way of living. Hooray to the British! This is the adequate way to react.

In the org I see business as usual: dogmatic discussions left against right, US against the rest of the world. This is not an adequate way to react. Now it is time to combine our forces and to strike back. Let us not discuss if Iraq war was right or wrong. It is a fact. It is time to reconsider. The Americans should reflect if all of their positions are right and what they could change to step up to Europe without loosing their focus. The Europeans should think how they could increase their efforts to fight terrorists. Both should think how they could combine their efforts and increase the efficiency.
The fight has just begun. The enemy is nor the US neither Europe. It is AQ. It is time to take on the fight.

What do you think?

There is no chance !!! the Europeans can't face the truth , so they just hiding from it , just listen to what the mayor of London said month , weeks , and days ago...

**scooter_the_shooter** · 07-08-2005, 16:02

Ok then what do does this new combined effort do after Iraq. (america is not going to invade anywhere until iraq is stable)

Their cant be a combined effort if no one agrees on who to go after

**Idaho** · 07-08-2005, 16:10

Yeah let's go and beat up.. er.. (looks around)... Botswana! B*stards - they've got it coming

:

**Don Corleone** · 07-08-2005, 16:28

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah let's go and beat up.. er.. (looks around)... Botswana! B*stards - they've got it coming

:

Better yet, let's just sit around and talk about how unacceptable terrorism is! That'll show 'em!!!

**Don Corleone** · 07-08-2005, 16:22

More importantly, it seems that people are trying to make their omlette without breaking any eggs. It's been frequently said that we must 1) remove the threat of terrorism while simultaneously 2) not create or foster an environment that might lead somebody who's not quite a terrorist to terrorism.

I personally do not know how to square agenda items 1 & 2. If somebody already has a pretty low opinion of the West, and think that everything we do is designed to keep the Arab world down, there's not much of a tip point to avoid there. Going in on targeted operations will almost certainly infuriate them as much as anything else. Why? Because you're still not respecting their sovereignty.

Let's say we got a tip that Zarqawi was holed up in Damascus, publicly issuing fatwahs for muslims to attack Western civilians around the globe. Let's say we pulled every carrot & stick we had to get Assad to turn him over, and Assad wasn't budging (you could make a strong argument that he couldn't, his people would never forgive him and his days would be numbered). Okay, now what? Do we send in a 'targeted assault team' to go get him? How's that going to play on Al Jazeera?

"Today, in a stunning slap in the face to Syrian national sovereignty, a task force of American SeALs and Brittish SAS forces stormed a downtown Damascus hotel, kidnapping popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. In flagrant violation of international law, the United States is refusing to disclose Mr. Zarqawi's location or allow him consular vists and legal representation. Although President Assad has condemned the kidnapping, very little has been done to force the Americans to return Mr. Zarqawi to freedom".

Or do we talk tough? Do we keep issuing press statements condemning Syria? Big deal! I could even see a news clip for that:
"In a heroic stand against Western oppression, President Assad today refused to cooperate with efforts by the West to imprison popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. Apparently, Mr. Zarqawis exhortation to the Arab world for unity and sovereignty are too much for the United States and it's allies to bear, and they have made no secret of their desire to whisk Mr. Zarqawi away to an undisclosed location. In showing such determination in the face of naked aggression, President Assad has shown himself to be a role model of how to thwart Western imperialism".

I mean, come on... what are you guys recommending?

**Franconicus** · 07-11-2005, 07:33

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

More importantly, it seems that people are trying to make their omlette without breaking any eggs. It's been frequently said that we must 1) remove the threat of terrorism while simultaneously 2) not create or foster an environment that might lead somebody who's not quite a terrorist to terrorism.

I personally do not know how to square agenda items 1 & 2. If somebody already has a pretty low opinion of the West, and think that everything we do is designed to keep the Arab world down, there's not much of a tip point to avoid there. Going in on targeted operations will almost certainly infuriate them as much as anything else. Why? Because you're still not respecting their sovereignty.

Let's say we got a tip that Zarqawi was holed up in Damascus, publicly issuing fatwahs for muslims to attack Western civilians around the globe. Let's say we pulled every carrot & stick we had to get Assad to turn him over, and Assad wasn't budging (you could make a strong argument that he couldn't, his people would never forgive him and his days would be numbered). Okay, now what? Do we send in a 'targeted assault team' to go get him? How's that going to play on Al Jazeera?

"Today, in a stunning slap in the face to Syrian national sovereignty, a task force of American SeALs and Brittish SAS forces stormed a downtown Damascus hotel, kidnapping popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. In flagrant violation of international law, the United States is refusing to disclose Mr. Zarqawi's location or allow him consular vists and legal representation. Although President Assad has condemned the kidnapping, very little has been done to force the Americans to return Mr. Zarqawi to freedom".

Or do we talk tough? Do we keep issuing press statements condemning Syria? Big deal! I could even see a news clip for that:
"In a heroic stand against Western oppression, President Assad today refused to cooperate with efforts by the West to imprison popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. Apparently, Mr. Zarqawis exhortation to the Arab world for unity and sovereignty are too much for the United States and it's allies to bear, and they have made no secret of their desire to whisk Mr. Zarqawi away to an undisclosed location. In showing such determination in the face of naked aggression, President Assad has shown himself to be a role model of how to thwart Western imperialism".

I mean, come on... what are you guys recommending?

Don,
I agree with your anaylsis, but my conclusions are different.
You cannot solve this problem with US troops only. Even though you have enough fire power, you will brake too much eggs. Not because you are doing it wrong, just because you are the US.
I know you do not want to hear this, but the only option is to include other nations. There should be an UN secret council that can decide pressure on these kind of government. Even the possibility to order immidiate military actions. And they must have access to permanent military forces. And they must have their own intelligence. And there have to be islamic nations in this council. It would be a big difference if soldiers from Egypt would attack Syria. Not for AQ, but for the rest of the world.
You may say that the UN is not able to act this way. You are right. But the US can change it. If the US wants to have an effective UN the rest of the world will follow. Esp. after 9/11, after all the other terror and after the Iraq war. But then the US has to give up some control.
I think it is more important to win the fight against terror than to control the war against terror.

**Don Corleone** · 07-11-2005, 13:10

Franconius,

The United States would work with an international body, if an international body would act.

Going back to my scenario, let's bring up some CNN footage to describe how your scenario would go, a couple of years into the future...

In what can only be described as a shocking rebuff today, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats at the UN Security Council blocked a vote to implement sanctions against Syria for giving sanctuary to known terrorist Abu Musad al Zarqawi. Mr. Zarqawi has been living in Damascus for the past 18 months, where he has publicly called for muslims around the globe to attack non-muslims of any sort, in any fashion. His incitements are frequently broadcast globally by Al Jazeera. At least two 4 terrorist attacks are believed to have been planned and ordered by Zarqawi since his arrival in Syria in October, 2005. Foregin minister Jack Straw and Secretary of State Condozleeza Rice produced volumes of evidence linking al Zarqawi to the Madrid train bombings, the London train bombings and numerous other more recent acts of terror. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, speaking for the opposition had this to say "It's not that we don't believe Zarqawi is responsible, or that he's still operating in Damascus. We the civilized nations of the world just don't believe this so-called pressure on Assad will lead anywhere. We have only been trying to convince Syria for 18 months. Let's give it another 4 or 5 years, and if he still hasn't relinquisted Al Zarqawi, perhaps we can begin to discuss some sanctions. But for now, non".

**Don Corleone** · 07-11-2005, 13:13

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ever consider why London got bombed? They sure don't "Hate your freedom." And they aren't inherantly evil. Assuming it was muslim extremists who did this, London was bombed because of it's association with America, it's colonial history, and a general angst against western oppression. Those bombs were an act of war, and the declaration was that they won't stand for what they see as past oppression and support of current oppression.

Now, I don't condone the attacks, but don't be ignorant. You need to address the roots, not the leaves.

If that's the case, why did the attack the WTC in 1993? The Khobar towers were a miliitary target (granted, we weren't actually at war with them, but as I'm sure you'll claim military targets are ALWAYS valid, I'll just skip this one), so let's move to the Kenyan & Tanzanian embassies? How dare the US open embassies in other countries?

Or is it your point that no matter what we do, we just deserve it? Defend ourselves, we're asking for it. Don't defend ourselves, we're asking for it. Why don't you go move over there if you think so highly of their cause?

I love how you claim you're not condoning the attacks, but that's exactly what you were doing.

**hundurinn** · 07-08-2005, 16:17

We need to fight back and attack those who are guilty but we can't do it with military force. We can't fight an enemy that we can't see or hear with the most powerful military on earth. We need to approach this matter in different ways.