Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on April 28, 2005, 03:20:46 PM
-
And the preliminary NCTC report said there were 651 terrorist attacks in 2004 classified as "significant," with 1,907 people killed.
Data released last year by the State Department for 2003 said 208 attacks killed 625 people worldwide. Of those attacks, 175 were deemed "significant," which at the time marked a 21-year high.
So terrorism is on the rise world wide... I am saying its too close to call right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/terror.report/index.html
-
What is the threshold of "significant"?
-
I am still more scared of cancer, so i guess winning
-
Obviously we're winning, there hasn't been an orange alert in forever!
-SW
-
You can't win the war against terror. It will be an ongoing fight until man excists no more. You may be able to limit it or at best track down a few of them but thats it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
You can't win the war against terror. It will be an ongoing fight until man excists no more. You may be able to limit it or at best track down a few of them but thats it.
No but you can be winning it or losing it. So which do you think it is? are we winning or losing? Not will we ever win.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No but you can be winning it or losing it. So which do you think it is? are we winning or losing? Not will we ever win.
Then I would say that we are losing it.
-
Stalemate
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Stalemate
You can't say that says raider.. its either win or lose.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
And the preliminary NCTC report said there were 651 terrorist attacks in 2004 classified as "significant," with 1,907 people killed.
Data released last year by the State Department for 2003 said 208 attacks killed 625 people worldwide. Of those attacks, 175 were deemed "significant," which at the time marked a 21-year high.
So terrorism is on the rise world wide... I am saying its too close to call right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/terror.report/index.html
The very idea of a "War on Terrorism" is silly and an absurd impossibility. I think i'll go start a the "War on Anger" but that will have to come after my smaller yet more pressing "War on Personal Hunger" as I am off to go make a sandwich.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
You can't say that says raider.. its either win or lose.
lol
-
come on raider , say what you want to say....bush evil , USA evil, war on terror evil,we can't win, run away..run away...
-
Well we are doing infinately better with the war on terror then we are on the war on drugs.
So I'd say were winning
-
Its a problem for the USA to win this so called war against terrorism, when it also supports terrorists and their terroristic actions.
Just one example:
The MEK is listed as a terrorist organisation - not only by the Islamic Republic of Iran but also by the USA.
They are iranians who fought from iraqi bases during the Iran-Iraq-War on the side of the arabs against the iranians.
They are considered as traitors by most of the iranians.
During the reign of the Shah the MEK-terrorist also killed US soldiers and civilians, who were working in Iran.
Saddam gave them military bases and military equipment, not only amall guns but also tanks, APCs, artillery and so on.
The MEK was also used by Saddam in fighting the iraqi kurds during Iran-Iraq-War.
When the US-forces captured Iraq these bases were not closed - no, the MEK-terrorists were allowed to stay there and to march around with their small guns. Only their heavy weapons were taken away.
And still today the MEK, operating from Iraq, are performing terroristic attacks against iranian targets.
So again: How do you expect to win a war against terrorism, if terrorists are allowed to act from US-controlled area ?
-
Lets see...
I'm not dead.
USA is still here.
I can vote.
I can be whatever religion I want.
I have a job, my family, a girlfriend.
My friends are here.
Aside from acts of nature, I have no threats.
Yeah we're winning.
-
"The very idea of a "War on Terrorism" is silly and an absurd impossibility."
Yep!
Its wars that make terrorists!
-
Originally posted by john9001
come on raider , say what you want to say....bush evil , USA evil, war on terror evil,we can't win, run away..run away...
No not evil. Just mismanaged? And no you don't run away after you start a fight.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No not evil. Just mismanaged? And no you don't run away after you start a fight.
how is it that you feel that WE started this fight?
-
Originally posted by babek- [/B]
When the US-forces captured Iraq these bases were not closed - no, the MEK-terrorists were allowed to stay there and to march around with their small guns. Only their heavy weapons were taken away.
Confined
still today the MEK, operating from Iraq, are performing terroristic attacks against iranian targets.
You reap what you sow?
-
How many of those attacks took place in Iraq? Remove them from the count and what do you have?
-
Remember that the first lesson of war is to make the enemy react to you instead of reacting to him. Terrorists are killing their support base in Iraq, and reacting to us, and the rest of the world has been about the same as it always was, or a little better.
-
Iraq can't be used as a measure how the war on terror is going.
Most of the actual terrorists are outside Iraq, elsewhere in the world.
They are practicing and planning for attacks abroad, against more significant targets.
They cannot be beat by any amount of fightning in Iraq, since they're not in Iraq.
Iraq is full of amateurs to keep up the pressure, so the US cannot withdraw, which means more money poured into Iraq and more political problems within the US. It is just a side show.
Some day the terrorists will strike again abroad, regardless of Iraq and that strike will cause more terror in the west than the whole years terrorist/guerrilla attacks in Iraq. Who gives a crap in the west when a hundred iraqis are killed in a terror attack?
Thats whats the actual terrorists are after, to terrorize the infidels in the west, so they most surely aren't operating in Iraq.
-
Exactly, Fishu, so remove all of the terrorist attacks that took place inside Iraq, and the level of world terrorism is lower than ever.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
how is it that you feel that WE started this fight?
Oh I mean Iraq, not neccesarily the bin laden hunt. And we did start the Iraq fight. Remember its not all just about WMD its about fighting terrorists over there instead of here. At least I remember bush saying that.
-
Raider, you are probably young, and you may have still been ****ting yellow in 1991, but read up on your history, Son. Saddam invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990, so everything since then is strictly because of his actions.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
but read up on your history, Son. Saddam invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990, so everything since then is strictly because of his actions.
Also read the fine print, where the US diplomats acted careless of the Saddams plans to invade Kuwait and he thought the US wouldn't mind it.
Had the diplomats said no, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait.
-
Fishu, that is the stupidest line of reasoning I have heard since Bill Clinton said getting his dick sucked wasn't sex.
-
The last I heard, Saddam was the leader of his country, and not a vassal of the US. His interpretation of a minor dipolmat's response has exactly what to do with him invading another country?
-
Along that line of reasoning, if the US diplomat toChina says, in response to a query, "well, the Tiawan issue is for you to resolve", does that mean the US would be responsible for China invading Tiawan?
-
Without a doubt losing, when those Bin-laden types see the way that we are thowing our freedoms away, they must feel a deep sense of satisfaction.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Raider, you are probably young, and you may have still been ****ting yellow in 1991, but read up on your history, Son. Saddam invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990, so everything since then is strictly because of his actions.
Sorry but I see it as when we go somewhere like Iraq and drives tanks into Baghdad I call that starting it. Pretty sure the Iraqi's were on defense. You can say Saddam this and Saddam that but there were lots of reasons that never seem to get brought up. Such as it being a perfect place for U.S. bases in the middle east. Ensuring that the oil supply won't be interrupted. Protecting the Al-Saud (sp) family. Being in position to defend Isreal/Saudi Arabia from overthrows/war.Oh and dont forget killing Terrorists aka insurgents. And last but not least for helping us forget about not being able to find whatshisname? oh yeah Osama.
But you can blame Saddam for forcing us to defend ourselves. If you want to talk about why we really went, maybe you should read a little more yourself.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Lets see...
I'm not dead.
USA is still here.
I can vote.
I can be whatever religion I want.
I have a job, my family, a girlfriend.
My friends are here.
Aside from acts of nature, I have no threats.
Yeah we're winning.
I can and DO own a handgun as well.
Karaya
-
gas is kinda expensives, it's a draw
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Its wars that make terrorists!
Oh,BS.
Terrorists find their own reasons to commit their acts.They have never needed a war to justify anything they do.
What war caused the Lockerbie bombing?What war caused the disco bombing in Berlin?What war caused the restaurant bombing in Madrid Spain in 85?What war caused 9/11?
-
Depends who you ask about whos winning or losing...many have different goalposts
Tronsky
-
For those of you that claim that we are winning the war on terrorism.... how many attacks a year is an acceptable number? below 10 and its won? 1? 50? 100?
There must be some kind of goal before its "won" right?
Get real people, its can never be won. It will be an ongoing fight forever.
-
Just like the war on drugs?
The war on crime?
Now we have a War on terror!
We are living in the safest times ever and we have three wars going on
:confused:
And before you get all jumpy and scared have a little think about how dangerous life was say 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 etc etc.
Now see how safe we all are.
-
Potential threats are virtually limitless.
War on Terror are to go on for a long time, actually i dont see a end at all.
-
Its a bloody obvious way to keep military spending high when the Cold war is dead and gone though isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Its a bloody obvious way to keep military spending high when the Cold war is dead and gone though isn't it?
The only spending that is high is directly related to war operations..other than that..the Navy is trying to drastically downsize..they are gutting us out again.
-
Ideologically, winning the war on terror is impossible. Numerically, it is possible but unpopular.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Numerically, it is possible but unpopular.
And because it is unpopular, new terrorist will be recruited.
-
Very true Nilsen, or at least until the recruiting pool is low enough to make the idea unpopular.
Westernization is the answer IMO. The ME is going to change, like it or not, into something more malleable by the western powers. The downside is that it will take a generation or two to really see a noticeable effect since it is going to change from the bottom up instead of from the top down. The trick to pulling it off will be keeping the microwave oven mentality from actually convincing everyone that it should have happened in the last 4 years or that it might even happen in the next 10.
-
yep... if we now have 500 more terrorist attacks than we did 10 years ago but 489 of em happen in one little country that is a war zone...
I'd say we were winning.
skyprancer... do you know what the word "obvious" means? or is "bloody" some kind of modifier?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Fishu, that is the stupidest line of reasoning I have heard
agreed.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If you want to talk about why we really went, maybe you should read a little more yourself.
please feel free to post the truth as you see it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
And because it is unpopular, new terrorist will be recruited.
whats the Nilsen solution?
give up or give in?
-
Lets just make a huge glowing parking lot of all the land outside of Amheerka.
There, i said out loud what all of you bananas think, happy?
-
would be interesting to disect the mind of saint and see how he reached the level of paranoia about the U.S.
lazs
-
I like the US. I don't like the single-cell organisms posting on this BBS. Big difference!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
whats the Nilsen solution?
give up or give in?
Fight it, but you have to fight the right guys.
Give me one good reason why you would want to give up or give in? sounds stupid to me.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
please feel free to post the truth as you see it.
Thats what I did above that quote you used. lol
-
The western world is enganged in the war on terror. big win
Being a terrorist is a much more difficult job and the mechanisims to defeat them in the western world are greatly evolved. big win
And understanding of the major groups of international terrorists is greatly enhanced. big win
Many more terrorists are being created then were 5 years ago. big loss
The definition of who is a terrorist are more clouded then ever. big loss
Even not considering Iraq the number of terrorist attacks in the world is up. big loss.
But they dont seem to be able to deliver horrific destruction of 911 levels. big win
Our sociaties have curtailed and restricted the rights of all of us to help engage terrorists. not win or loss in my mind, its war.
The power of alquida has been greatly diminished in scope but greatly broadend in reach. Dilluted and diffused. I think from where I sit in my office in canada that is a win. But time may prove me wrong.
The war is not won. But it is engaged for real even with the distraction of Iraq.
That puts us in way better shape but far from the end game. Without a world police state its hard to see how it could be won absolutly.