Author Topic: they think $$ will bring them back?  (Read 1097 times)

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2003, 05:46:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
People need to realize that we "won" WW2 when we supplied Europe with food and money (Marshall Plan). We "won" the cold war by building and forcing the other guy to build and outspending them and by allowing the Beatle's White Album to be smuggled into Russia.

The war on terror cannot be won with bullets. Those are just the preliminary means to get to the end. We need to win the hearts and minds of the potential enemy.




we can't even get our own hearts and minds into this thing,  what makes you think we'll win theirs?  Don't get me wrong,  I think we're doing the right thing in Iraq.  Personally I think the Marshall plan should be the model.  But we've only been there for 6 months, actually less, and we're about to eat ourselves alive over here.  I work in civil engineering.  NOTHING gets done in the first 6 months of ANYTHING.  People are too stupid to project that far in advance.  Hence I have zero faith that my country will win this war.  I think we have the ability to for sure, but as a nation we lack the collective resolve to do what needs to be done.


 Bush is to blame for this (the PR failure, not the war).....

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2003, 05:47:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?

I understand with situations like palistine, terrorism will never go away, but we can not force these people to work withen the system by making them pay a higher and higher price for their actions? Hmm this will only work for the ones who want to live....


As for this lawsuite  Scum, they are already getting tons of money from the gov, and now they are going to sure over something lame............ sometimes I just can't believe how lame people are.


The point is that as an "ideology", there is no "cost" to being a terrorist.  You cannot defeat someone's willingness to die for their cause by hunting them down and killing them.  Of course, you do remove that individual threat, but the killing itself merely motivates the balance of the horde.

There is no "price" to pay for their actions in ISRAEL, as you can never eliminate all of the terrorist infrastructure, and attempting to do so does not serve as a deterrent to others.

The "problem" is that citizens of democracies typically value and celebrate life.  Terrorist ideologies do not.  You cannot defeat an enemy who values his life less than you do yours.

As one of the previous posts pointed out, it takes more than bullets to win a war.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2003, 05:58:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman

The "problem" is that citizens of democracies typically value and celebrate life.  Terrorist ideologies do not.  You cannot defeat an enemy who values his life less than you do yours.

As one of the previous posts pointed out, it takes more than bullets to win a war.


I don't believe terrorism is an idealogy. It's simply a tool currently used for waging asymetric warfare. Terror is used to test the resolve of your opponent. We've used it as have others. It is effective.
sand

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2003, 05:59:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?


So far... the cost is that the government that harbored Al-Qaeda lost their country.

From current reports, the Al-Qaeda are far from extinguished.
sand

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2003, 06:02:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't believe terrorism is an idealogy. It's simply a tool currently used for waging asymetric warfare. Terror is used to test the resolve of your opponent. We've used it as have others. It is effective.


I disagree.  To those who practice terrorism it is part of a greater conviction seen as an acceptable method to achieve ones goals.  Call it what you will, but it is effective, difficult to defend against, almost impossible to eradicate, and the people who perpetuate it are committed to it more so, in my view, than the will of the people who are trying to stamp it out.

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10165
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2003, 06:04:13 PM »
We could change sides and become a militant radical muslum nation but then we would have to ship sandman to finland.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #36 on: September 09, 2003, 06:09:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So far... the cost is that the government that harbored Al-Qaeda lost their country.

From current reports, the Al-Qaeda are far from extinguished.


And the cost to the Free World?  $87 billion plus and counting, 400 or so U.S. and U.K. soldiers, "our" civilian casualties, etc., etc.

That's not to say that I don't believe in what is being done, but my fear is that the will to fight will wane as soon as the cost (primarily financial) become apparent to the US public.  You can't manufacture $87 billion out of nowhere.  Either taxes go up or services get cut.  Not to mention a need to expand the US military given that it is already overextended.  Combine the above with an economy that is trying to recover.

Frankly, I don't think that the Taliban are as upset about living in their caves as the US public may eventually be when the true cost of war begins to hit home.  At that point the true test of which side is more committed to their fight will become apparent, and hopefully at that point our commitment is stronger than theirs.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2003, 06:10:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman
I disagree.  To those who practice terrorism it is part of a greater conviction seen as an acceptable method to achieve ones goals.  Call it what you will, but it is effective, difficult to defend against, almost impossible to eradicate, and the people who perpetuate it are committed to it more so, in my view, than the will of the people who are trying to stamp it out.



What? You think someone is going to go toe to toe with the U.S?

"If the enemy is settled, be able to move him; appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects." - Sun Tzu
sand

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #38 on: September 09, 2003, 06:17:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What? You think someone is going to go toe to toe with the U.S?

"If the enemy is settled, be able to move him; appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects." - Sun Tzu


Why would an enemy who is overmatched in terms of firepower and resources meet you on the battlefield on your terms?  Of course they won't go toe to toe with you.  So the Sun Tzu quote really doesn't apply since the enemy is not "settled".  The Chinese master was referring to set piece battles and flanking manoevers (i.e., traditional warfare).

I disagreed with your argument that terrorism is not an idealogy, but otherwise I thought we both agreed it is effective.  You will have as much a chance of defeating terrorism, in the sense of eradicating it, as you did in defeating the Viet Cong and the NVA.

Again, a quick call to the Israeli Defence Forces should clarify any doubts about the difficulty of eradicating any terrorist organization.  Or perhaps a call to the British Army for a briefing on their Northern Ireland experiences.  The Soviet military perhaps, and some insight into Afghanistan I.

To paraphrase Ho Chi Minh, you are the elephant, they are the mice.  The problem is trying to find the mice in order to stomp on them.....all of them.

Offline wulfie

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
      • http://www.twinkies.com/index.asp
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2003, 06:32:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?


As far as Al-Q is concerned, it is working. The terrorist groups Israel faces have the advantage of a population base that indoctrinates suicide bombers from a very young age. Al-Q does not have this. In Arabic culture people like a winner. Al-Q hasn't 'won' in the eyes of the populations they recruit from for some time now. Ask yourself this - when was the last time you saw a televised rally like the ones shortly after 11SEP01 - the ones where you had people waving placards with bin Laden's face on them, etc.?

Al-Q doesn't have a lot in common with the terror groups Israel faces. They don't have the same pure, simple ideology - 'Destroy Israel and Return Palestine to it's Rightful Owners'. First the U.S. was evil because there were U.S. troops in Saudi. Now all Democracy is evil because it corrupts the pure disciples of Islam. That may work on scattered teenagers with nothing to lose, but Ali Babba may not think Democracy is so bad when one of his kids get sick and he can get to a doctor that can save him.

Israel isn't involved in a war against terror - they are involved in a war for their survival - being as they are still here, despite being 3 on 1'd almost since their beginning as a Nation, I'd say they are winning in a significant way.

The groups attacking Israel have a huge advantage as long as their are Nations neighboring Israel who support terrorist attacks against Israel. They cull some dumb-ass indoctinated teenagers every month or so and send them into Israel to blow up some women and kids. The terror groups don't put their experienced cadre at risk any more than is necessary. Their fund raising is sanctioned by Sovereign Nations. They have a relatively secure infrastructure. And their target is close by - they need to cross one border to 'get to work'.

Al-Q doesn't have it near as easy, especially since the Taliban went away. For every 'support specialist' (forger, fraud expert for generating funds, 'fixer', etc.) that they have in a safe place they probably have 2 that have 'gone to ground' in a 'hostile' Nation. These guys can't ask for direction, they can't receive directions, and every once in awhile someone in Gitmo gives up a little data that allows one of these guys to get picked up - he then gets grilled, gives up some data, etc.

Regardless of what certain politicians and media outlets say, Al-Q has lost no small # of experienced personnel that they are not going to be able to replace. Do you think a freelancer is going to do anything for Al-Q these days? When the money to betray them to the good guys is 3 times as good? Do you think Al-Q is going to trust a freelancer with all that reward money floating around?

Al-Q had a tougher mission than the guys targeting Israel. Except for instances like the U.S.S. Cole, where they could stage an op from 'friendly' territory (meaning Yemen, which is no longer so 'friendly') they needed the ability to position cells in different hemispheres for ops. They needed to keep those cells hidden. They were good with their COMSEC so they would arrange personal meetings between cell leaders and senior leadership in 'safe areas' (Afghanistan).

All of that is no longer a 'for sure' option. They have guys that need to travel but don't dare because they don't know if they are being looked for *yet* (which is something that lawyers who want all the documentation of every interrogation and/or prosecution revealed to everyone either don't get or don't give a damn about).

They were set up very well from a 'beat enemy COIN ops' standpoint because their leaders were trained by the U.S., U.K., France, etc. to operate as cells against the Soviets in Soviet controlled Afghanistan. This made them very hard to detect and penetrate.

But post-11SEP01, when basically the entire world of intelligence and CT put them on the 'burn these as$holes first' list, that structure became a hindrance. Because when a senior leader goes missing (dead? captured? did he talk? is he just hiding?) there's no automatic 'second in command' to take over from where that senior leader was when he was 'forced to leave'. Some of the other senior leadership probably has a good idea of what's going on, but the contact information isn't memorized by everyone, etc.

You see that system - that operational cell based system - it was developed by the CIA, the KGB, etc. So there was always a 'safe' HQ that had all the data *somewhere*. A place that could not be penetrated or destroyed. John Smith is running 7 cells each headed by some Eastern European recruit and each operating somewhere in the Soviet Bloc. There is no way that John Smith is every going 'over the fence'. If John Smith gets nabbed, 7 cells worth of guys are at risk. Each cell leader knows John Smith by a different name. Some of them think he works for the U.S., and a couple of them probably think he works for another Nation.

The 'John Smiths' of Al-Q are in hiding, or captured, or dead for the most part. There are still Al-Q cells - with no orders, no support, and no real way to contact HQ and find out what is going on. When you read about some senior Al-Q leader being captured in the news, they didn't leak that information to have Baskin Robbins sponsor a 'Free Ice Cream For Agency Guys' week. They leak that because sometimes such information makes people panic. "They got Habib? Holy Camel - he's our senior planner, they're gonna know about us before the week is out! We've got to cross the border before Wednesday and get some serious miles between us and this safehouse!".

Also there has never been a 'terrorist group' were everyone was commited to die for the cause. Some guys are the 'Gene Hackman' of terrorists - they go from group to group because that's all they've ever done and they make lots of $$$ doing it. The senior leaders are usually diehards. But it's a safe bet that no small number of Al-Q 'sleeper cells' have basically dissolved. Once some guys find out they aren't anonymous - that they can be zapped before they get the chance to park the truck bomb in front of the Rose Parade, they lose a little 'fanaticism'. Especially when the leaders are off the phone for months, etc.

The short version - the Israelis have a much tougher situation on their hands because they are fighting an enemy that can stage operations from a few km away and that enemy has a near-limitless supply of 'suicide attackers'. That's the case where the 'Hearts and Minds' statement really applies - the Palestinian people have to come to the understanding that the terrorist leaders who claim to be 'fighting their cause' are only using them as 'human bullets' not to deliver the Palestinians, but to destroy Israel. This is also starting to happen - Palestinian parents are beginning to get annoyed at terrorist recruiters cruising the cigarette joints where the kids hang out.

Mike/wulfie

(p.s. This is a 'quick and dirty' reply so please excuse the spelling. Also, I'm getting ready to 'go away' from regular computer access again for awhile so I'll get a chance to reply tomorrow and then I'll be offline - if I don't reply after that I'm not ignoring you).

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2003, 07:34:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman
Why would an enemy who is overmatched in terms of firepower and resources meet you on the battlefield on your terms?  Of course they won't go toe to toe with you.  So the Sun Tzu quote really doesn't apply since the enemy is not "settled".  The Chinese master was referring to set piece battles and flanking manoevers (i.e., traditional warfare).



Turn it around and look at it from the attacker's perspective. The U.S. is effectively settled, defenses are in place.
sand

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2003, 08:28:30 AM »
Wulfie,

Good post.  I loved the reference to the "Gene Hackman" of terrorists.  Had me laughing for a while on that one.  :)

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2003, 08:44:27 AM »
Great post as usual Wulfie.

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
they think $$ will bring them back?
« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2003, 09:35:59 AM »
Quote
they think $$ will bring them back?


The money grubbing started almost immediately after 9/11. Many of us Americans started trying to make a buck from it - From singing cops putting out 9/11 albums, to camera-conscious fire fighters copywriting photos of flag raising - and suing people for using the image, to ambulance chasing attorneys hired by victims' family, friends, acquaintances, and the victims themselves, to vendors of T-shirts, silk screened pillows showing the towers, to memorial coins and so on. Its the American way.

The outragious lawsuits and ridiculus jury awards will continue to get larger and more out of control until we support Tort Reform in this country, across the board.

I don't think we can count on the lawyers to excersize self control or put any decent limitations on their attempts to get money.
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century