Progress against terror

**Franconicus** · 07-13-2005, 14:50

Is there a progress in the war against terror or steps backwards.

Pros:
Killing or arresting some AQ leaders and fighters
destruction of training camps in Afghanistan
destruction of the Taliban regime
ending the rule of Saddam
no major attack inside the US
Bin Ladn has to hide

Cons:
Bin Ladn still free
AQ still active (Madrid, London)
terrorism introduced in Iraq, number of terror fighters increased
weakening of NATO and UN

Did we win so far or did we loose?

**PanzerJaeger** · 07-13-2005, 15:02

I certainly expected more attacks in the US, so progress is going better than expected. Thats not to say its going as well as it could be..

**Al Khalifah** · 07-13-2005, 15:11

I'm not sure any progress has really been made by either side. I can't imagine a world without terrorism, but I can't see a world of total terror.

I refuse to let these people affect my life though, so it does not concern me in the slighest.

**Viking** · 07-13-2005, 15:31

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Pros:
ending the rule of Saddam

Cons:
terrorism introduced in Iraq, number of terror fighters increased

Ending the rule of Saddam have made more people die every day thanks to increased terrorism in Iraq.

I can`t really see that as a too positive happenng in this perspective; were there really any terrorists with base in Iraq before the war?

As to the poll I think you missed at least one option, I don`t think we can say how the war`s going for sure. I really don`t know.

**Franconicus** · 07-13-2005, 16:06

Sorry, I missed that.

**Don Corleone** · 07-13-2005, 16:12

Well, if Viking gets to add his point, which I can't disagree with, I'm going to add that the war on terror didn't 'weaken NATO and the UN', they were already weak before we launched our first salvo at Afghanistan.

**Ser Clegane** · 07-13-2005, 16:12

There is no progress I am aware of.

Of course one problem is to agree on how to measure progress.

Is it the number of terrorists killed?
Is it the number of terrorists at large (a bit hard to come up with reliable numbers here)?
Is it the number of terrorist attacks (hardly as terrorist attacks - outside Iraq - are fortunately not frequent enough to measure "trends" in a meaningful way)?

The fact that there was no major attack on American soil since 9/11 does not mean anything in terms of progress, as attacks on American soil have not been particularly frequent before 9/11 either.

**Franconicus** · 07-13-2005, 16:16

Is it the number of terrorists killed? No, that is secondaryIs it the number of terrorists at large (a bit hard to come up with reliable numbers here)? The number, their potential, their activityIs it the number of terrorist attacks Yes

**Marcellus** · 07-13-2005, 17:14

I can see no progress in addressing the causes of terrorism. Until the causes are dealt with, for every terrorist we kill or capture another one is recruited, maintaining the terrorist threat.

**Ice** · 07-15-2005, 00:20

Originally Posted by Viking

Ending the rule of Saddam have made more people die every day thanks to increased terrorism in Iraq.

I can`t really see that as a too positive happenng in this perspective; were there really any terrorists with base in Iraq before the war?

As to the poll I think you missed at least one option, I don`t think we can say how the war`s going for sure. I really don`t know.

To be honest... I don't Saddam supported terrorists in his country. I highly doubt he would want those insane people running around in his countrying blowing up his country/giving foriegn countries an incentive to invade.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-15-2005, 00:43

Osama bin Laden is losing public confidence in several key Islamic countries, while growing numbers of Muslims are sharing Western concerns over extremism, a new survey found.

Dosent that mean we are making progress? And significant progress at that it seems. This is the only way we can beat him. I dont think those guys in Iraq are scoring many points killing Iraqis.