Terrorists suck at what they do?

Terrorists are just criminals with a bigger gun and idiotic ideas.

Maybe some sucks but there are still terrorists that are well-trained and clever ones. Let us just hope that the anti-terrorist units can catch up with them.

I can't see terrorism that lopsidedly. Terrorism is nothing more than the gestalt state of guerrilla war. Like all warfare, it can be waged in the names of just ideals and against the most depraved sins and injustice. Like all wars it's blind and brutal as has little mercy for those in its way while it tries to "amend" the perceived injustice in the world.

While I won't condone terrorism, it's not because I outright reject (all) their methods or the justice of their cause. It's because they're no better than any other warmonger, who believes that their cause in it's grandness makes the plea of all in their way irrelevant. That's for the ideologists, the freedom fighters, the revolutionaries, the self-proclaimed protectors of justice and order.

...for those who can't even make such a claim, yet purport to seed discord and suffering for the singular benefit of themselves: for those I have no mercy. They showed no mercy for anyone else, no decency, no shred of human morality.

Whether the war is waged by pipe bombs or strategic bombers, whether the fighters are young men indoctrinated with religious fervor, or young men drawn in with promises of career and fighting the good fight, the death and suffering of the innocent are the same.

Your goals, your ideals are irrelevant. If through your actions, you've brought misery upon the people you're no better than what you claim to fight.

In it's "war on terror", the USA has unleashed not just as much, but several magnitudes more bloodshed than it enemies. I'm no delusional hippy. I can accept that war and suffering are sometimes the least bad choice When not going war would purport even greater crimes, when going to war is the only way to preserve the welfare of your own people. However can you in good conscience say that your wars did any of that? America is no further ahead in its war to rid the world of extremism than it was on the eve of 9/11. Your people are terrified, magnified by hiseria now seeing horrors in the very minute details of life where only ordernary was before.

What of the people of Iraq? They lived in a stabile country, under the iron rule of a bloody despot - one you helped create - with horrific atrocities to his name - yet which pale in comparision to your other creations, I for one will not forget the Khmer Rouges had your blessings. Now, not only is the terror still in their life, it's not carried by a dozen warlords who demand coutnermanding proclimations of allience from them and bloodshed - something detained in the sickly sweat smelling dungeons of state security forces and precautionary tales against dissent - has exploded onto the streets claiming their kin in untold numbers. You haven't lived up to your promises to them either...

...and no, you can't demand that they fix it themselves. You're the ones who created this, the ones who can't babbling about a daydrem their nation had no hope of living while the very same scumbags who were among Saddam's cronies were pushed into office and heralded as knight of justice.

So no. I'm not one of those idiots who believes that terrorism is just another "madness" that afflicts the mad or poor (and usually both). It's just the beaten fighting back, with blind fervor and merciless hatred.
In doing so, they become something even worse than what they seek to destroy.

I think it's just hard to get people who are both smart enough to do a good job, but stupid enough to kill themself*


*[size=10]refering to suicide bombers.[/h]

In my opinion, anyone who can be convinced to kill themself is mantaly deficient and i pity them.

So how should have America reacted after 9/11? Simply let Bush scold the terrorists over the airwaves and then let them continue their operations unfettered? At that time, Iraq was believed to have had strong ties with terrorist organizations and nuclear weapons (although this was later proved to be false). That fact that Saddam was a tyrant and engaged in questionable activities only provoked the situation even further. The federal government put faith in the information the CIA provided, and fueled by the tragedy of 9/11, green lit the beginnings of the current war in Iraq to defend the western belief of democracy.



If by stable you mean total suppression through tyrannical means, okay, sure. The situation in Iraq is a mess, and everyone knows that America is in a deep, deep quagmire rife with problems that just keep coming. Nobody likes the current state of affairs, and the government is working their ass off to try and fix things. If you think that America still wants to be in this war, you're sorely mistaken.

Just for one moment, try to imagine yourself in Bush's and Congress' position in 2001... Can you really say that you wouldn't have taken any military action? That you wouldn't have declared war?

You actually believe any of the shit you wrote down? Let me reiterate: your intentions, your ideal weigh nothing. All that matters (to me) are results. So far your results: you destabilized an area, you put more power into the hands of countries hostile to your own, you're engaged in a war that you're unequipped and unwilling to fight. (The only lesson the US learnt in Vietnam? To not fight a war like Vietnam... ergo nothing of substance).

The invasion plan of Iraq had been drawn up long before 9/11. The WDM scare was a total farce and everyone who didn't live with their head up their ass and FoxNews rectally massaging their bowels for good measure will agree that it was 100% fabricated.

You want total oppression?
-Why don't you do something about North Korea? It's the poster state for total oppression.
-Why don't you do something about Kazakhstan? It's pretty much a modern Stalinist state.
-Why don't you do something about Georgia? Even Freedom House (a CIA frontend) had to condemn the last batch of election there... yeah Sakash Villie turned out to be even more of an authoritarian than big bad Putin and his "enforced democracy".

But all of that is bullshit. Once more: your (good) intentions, your ideals don't mean shit. Except you're not even being honest. (The fact that American citizens, hell most western people eat this shit up at face value never ceases to amaze me and make me sick at the same time). You're very good pals and support a wide number of disgusting dictatorships around the globe who're just as bad as Saddam was.

-You went after a country that wasn't threatening you.
-You went after a country that didn't train the terrorists who attacked you.
-You went after a country that never trained terrorist who were a threat against you.
-You went after a country that was thoroughly secular and therefore helped keep fundamentalist states in check.

Please, stop spouting fucking ideology and give a single practical reason why going after either Iraq or Afghanistan was a good idea.

Although I’ll take your lack of response to my PM to mean that you don’t care for my opinion, I’d still like to clarify what I said earlier, as you seem to have misunderstood me. I was talking about the circumstances in which the beginnings of the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

Before I delve into my opinions, I would like to make sure we’re on the same page:



The most crucial issue that was being pushed by Bush in regards to Iraq in 2002-2003? WMD’s. Why? Because information was being provided by federal and international intelligence agencies that WMD’s existed and presented a legitimate threat. Given the information they had at that time concerning Iraq, Congress permitted the Bush administration to engage in military combat. Had such faulty information never been provided, then Congress would not have granted such permission – several members were quick to state this during and after 2004. Bush later expressed his regret as well (ABC News exit interview).

This should suffice as a response to your opinion of why America went to war, and why they haven’t engaged in military combat with other nations in which similarly oppressive governments exist. To think that a blind eye is being turned upon those nations is wrong. I’m not going to take the time to find the numerous articles that exist concerning America’s diplomatic actions and stance on such governments, but I hope you will at least make a cursory search for your own benefit.

You requested it, so here is a single, practical reason as to why entering Iraq or Afghanistan was a good idea: to deter operations of terrorist organizations that would have otherwise gone unchecked. Although I respect your opinion to think that America and its allies have made no progress in this, I vehemently disagree with you. I’d link to articles showing such progress, but to do so would take more than an hour, and I’ve got this funny feeling that I’d be wasting my time in doing that for you.

Finally, unless the world has completely inverted itself overnight, America’s closest allies or “pals” should still remain as most of the countries within the EU, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

For a person whose opinions are based off of results, sure is easy to pass criticisms once you know the outcome of everything, isn’t it? Makes me wish I knew you a decade ago while this was all still unfolding.

Terrorism works.

I you don't agree that it works, try this:

Open an account in DA, or any other forum/site that's widely seen.
Make a cartoon making fun of Allah.
Post your picture along with the cartoon.

If you have the balls to do that, then I'd agree than terrorism doesn't work. The fact that south partk gets censored shows that terrorism works. The fact that I can't bring a juice drink in an airplane, or have to take of my shoes is evidence that terrorism works. The fact that the US now occupies two countries shows that terrorism works.

Terrorism isn't about "wishing to kill us," as the OP put it. Terrorism is about inflicting _terror_. Its about scaring people to do or not to do certain things with the threat of violence. And, seeing the amount of changes to prevent such violence since 9/11, terrorists are doing a _very_ good job.

If you mean that the US has not made any attempts to stop them via military means, then I would agree with you on that point. By no means, however, is the federal government supportive of such actions, nor are they ignoring those topics. Relations with those countries certainly exist, but they are strained and critically viewed. For information on the stance and diplomatic means America has engaged in, a good place to start would be the Secretary of State’s website and Obama’s archive of statements.

As for the US “economically sucking up” to China, China holds the largest amount of US federal reserves right now. Taking into account the current state of the economy, does the US really have any choice not to? Countries worldwide are kowtowing to China’s growing strength as an economic power. It would be foolish of any government not to curry favor because of the large role China’s economy plays in the international market.

In regards to Afghanistan, that is exactly why the Obama administration is increasing the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan. Information regarding Obama’s strategy can be found easily. For information regarding Congress’ activities on this matter, C-SPAN is a great resource.

[size=10]As for Spain, I’m at a loss as to why you have included their government with your list. I don’t know of any actions they have taken that could be considered as grave – aside from their economic policies lol. What specific issues were you referring to?[/h]

I'd like to clarify a few things:
- I take "support" to mean when a government either lends monetary, military, or diplomatic aid. Diplomatic means include economic policies in favor of that country (ie: trade), in addition to dialogue held between governments.
- Inaction =/= support.
- Having relations with other governments doesn't automatically mean that either party gives a ringing endorsement of the other. Nor does it mean that said relations are always positive.
- I do not see or wish for the US to be the world's "police force", as I'm sure is the worldwide sentiment. The US is by no means an ideal country free from error.

Chile: Look at this situation in retrospect to the past 50 years before and following Pinochet. I agree that the CIA did have involvement with this, but the circumstances in which it occurred must be recognized.
Spain: Please keep in mind the global activity that was occurring during this period. Taking into account the Japanese aggression and the beginnings of WWII occurring, can you really place fault in any country not focusing entirely on Spain? Secondly, the US as part of a coalition with other nations, did exert economic pressure that undermined Franco's policies.
Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc.: I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here. Stand in the shoes of the countries that gave aid to these parties and evaluate their actions with mind to their circumstance. The biggest fault of the US is that they took no care to follow up with their presence in the region, leading to the growth of the Taliban. The manner in which the US quickly departed was terrible.
Indonesia: I would revisit your understanding of US involvement with Sukarno. I believe you have mixed up which parties the CIA gave aid to. The involvement of the US in this situation is similar to that of the previous point.

In regards to Saudi Arabia, you can find my response to your opinion of that in my third clarification above. As for Colombia, this is the first time I've heard of it, so my knowledge is minimal. I can't mirror or refute your claim to America's support of death squads, or give an opinion.



When that politician is the Secretary of State, the federal government official in charge of foreign relations, something will come out of it. Their actions may not always be as effective as we may wish, but that position is neither moot nor fruitless. Also, I merely pointed you in a direction. Not all information you may seek will be found within those two sites alone.

In regards to Iran, let me repeat that while relations between governments may exist, that doesn't automatically mean it is a favorable one. The relationship Iran holds with G8 nations, and even most of the G20, is strained. I wonder what information leads you to believe that the US considers Iran to be its good friend and ally?

---

[size=11]Look, if you want to talk about unsavory US decisions, allow me to partake in that as well: the war crimes that have been committed in Iraq, the mismanagement of federal funds for Iraqi/Afghan development contracts, and the lack of consistent strategy, among other things.

I think you have misunderstood me in believing that I think the US to be an entirely benevolent government. It has its own share of bad decisions and policies that I view critically as well. I do not see the US to be a perfect or ideal nation, nor do I see it as anywhere close to being such. I have qualms with its foreign and economic policies, but I restrained from giving these opinions as I thought they didn't fit the OP's intended topic for this thread. If you would like to discuss these, then I am more than welcome to further conversation via PM.[/h]

I lol'd but yeah they do suck at what they do. Its like a fail troll who doesn't even try to troll

The main objective of terrorism is not the physical persecution of its objective but spreading fear and raising averseness of its agenda.

Granted, actually destroying the target is damn good result (from their point of view) and the "best" "message" they could send. (Do what I demand, or I'll keep killing your people!)

However if even an failed attempt makes the general public fear them and give consideration to their demands, then yes, I'd have to say they're succeeding.

This isn't about the realistic effect of their action, but the public perception of them and in this regard the way western governments handle the issue is a major mistake. They should be constantly marginalizing and downplaying the seriousness of the danger in the press.

Meanwhile massive founds should be put into actual intelligence work - good 'ol humint - instead the security theater that seems to seep into our life everywhere.

---

@Chiva: Let me clarify my position. I'm tired of all the ideological debate around the wars. I'd grant you that a solid case could be made for the invasion of Afghanistan and a marginal case could be made for the invasion of Iraq.

I also have to point out that it was only mainstream media who was lapping up and swallowing the line spouted by Bush and company.

Even at the time, there was solid evidence out there that it was the Bush administration who pushed the intelligence agencies into publishing reports in favor or their policy. Nay-sayers and cautionary reports were silenced or suppressed.

That's for the casus belli.

Now about the methods: in both cases the "operational plan" was outstandingly naives and juvenile. We get rid of the "bad guys" and the nation flocks to us while we build a democracy...

...going into the face of over a 100 years of occupation experience and lessons learned in counter insurgency warfare.

To sum it up: the post invasion handling of the situation was a disaster and was the perfect recipe for cooking up an insurgency.

Now about management: it wasn't until Petraeus was deployed that a COIN doctrine was even drawn up! The forces deployed had no idea what they were dealing with, their responses were the wrong kind to actually suppress an insurgency (shock and awe can crush an army... it will only strengthen an insurgency). Even now, while a policy is finally in place, it has yet to be widely understood and brought into actual operational practices.

Now about a intelligence: Because the classical intelligence couldn't be relied on to deliver fast (and the "desired" - ahem WMDs) results the task was simply pushed onto the ground forces who went about it in a heavy handed and gung' ho fashion... an utter disaster. The reason why the CIA couldn't deliver is simple - such work takes months or years. It's subtle and slowly builds up to major results that later on translate to a solid understanding and transforms your actions into a surgical strike that can root out the opposition instead the blundering that does more bad than good. (Number of dead insurgents? Number of raids? All insignificant! Actual casualties are good for the insurgents, as the dead can be made into martyrs and "proof" of the barbarism of the invaders. Successful COIN needs to isolate the insurgents, behead their organization, co-opt its members and discredit the movement before the people at large. Merely killing as many guys as possible (even if they ARE insurgents) won't do that).

So to sum it up:
-Afghanistan was launched under acceptable reasons with valid objectives. The actual operational plan after the invasion was flawed and juvenile.
-Iraq was launched under trumped up reasons and its objectives were ill defined. The actual post-invasion plan was even more flawed than in Afghanistan.
-In both theaters the post-invasion occupation was mismanaged.
-The intelligence efforts in both theaters went against decades of solid advice and the actual experts were marginalized.

All through this sordid affair, an infuriating, "Can Do" platitude was permeating the whole communication and planning(!) that has no place in national policy or military operations. Bush and company tried to convince everyone that being positive will ensure that everything goes as they planned. When it didn't, instead consulting professional advice they just tried the same shit even harder - to disastrous results.

A post word:
As is, I believe the USA will have to abandon one of the theaters as it doesn't have the resources to uphold an occupation in both of them. Preferably if resources were present than both of them should be held onto... but there simply aren't. Contrary to what's said everywhere else, I think it should be Afghanistan that's abandoned.

A shift in perception is also necessary: COIN takes *decades* to do. So the USA better buckle up and realize they'll be in this for a long time and their sons will keep dieing in a foreign land.

A change in policy is also necessary: instead aiming for maximum immediate damage, more effort should go into stabilizing the region and all effort should be made so that native security forces can take over wherever possible. All pretenses to "democracy" should be abandoned. As long as the state can't extend and maintain its power protecting its citizens, all trapping of free voting and freedom will be an illusion strictly for western cameras but a far dream for actual citizens. The prime target instead would be restoring public security.