The reason you don't invade countries to fight terrorists.

Faldarian · Post by **Faldarian** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:32 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html

Bad news. Bad, bad news. And I think it illustrates why an offensive war on terror handled in the way it has been is such a big gamble... Al Qaeda's ranks are now officially much larger than they were before 9/11.

Add onto that that if the president was right about their forces being tied up in Iraq instead of being here that that problem just resolved itself. This was bound to happen, and I think it's a not just a bad sign for our security but a bad sign for how well our fight against terror is progressing.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:46 am

Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:57 am

Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.

No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:42 am

I cant wait till the election is over, that much I can tell you. But wait, I thought in the other thread everyone agreed terrorists wernt a threat? Why are we worried about this guy then?

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:35 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:I cant wait till the election is over, that much I can tell you. But wait, I thought in the other thread everyone agreed terrorists wernt a threat? Why are we worried about this guy then?

The other thread?

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:41 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.

False Dichotomy

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:00 pm

ChrisGrenard wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.
No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!

Preemptive

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:02 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.
No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!
Preemptive

Usurp
This "favorite words" thread is fun!

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:04 pm

Eduardo X wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:I cant wait till the election is over, that much I can tell you. But wait, I thought in the other thread everyone agreed terrorists wernt a threat? Why are we worried about this guy then?
The other thread?

The one about terrorism being overstated. I just keep thinking that while people believe that Alqueda is dead, some of the same people point to this as a reason why we should not have gone into Iraq, and now somehow Alqueda is stronger, even though in the thread about terrorism being overstated there was no infastructure of Alqueda. Just proving a point and showing some hypocrasy.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:09 pm

Eduardo X wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.
No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!
Preemptive
Usurp
This "favorite words" thread is fun!

Fairy Tale

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:10 pm

Catch me if I'm wrong...but isn't Al Qaeda all about secrecy, infiltration and decentralization? It seems to me that this very public organization pledging its undying love runs counter to AQ's whole philosophy. I'm going to guess that it's for show only.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:29 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.
No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!
Preemptive
Usurp
This "favorite words" thread is fun!
Fairy Tale

You can't have 2 favorites!

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:35 pm

Ironrod wrote:Catch me if I'm wrong...but isn't Al Qaeda all about secrecy, infiltration and decentralization? It seems to me that this very public organization pledging its undying love runs counter to AQ's whole philosophy. I'm going to guess that it's for show only.

Al Qaeda's purpose is to effect political change, that is it's goal. The organization doesn't exist for the sake of existing, of feeding itself (like a nation). That means, if you have to change the philosophy of the organization to effect the change, then, that's what you have to do.

That's what makes it so difficult to fight.

noun · Post by **noun** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:41 pm

Eduardo X wrote:You can't have 2 favorites!

Maybe not, but calling our current terrorist war plans a pre-emptive fairy tale would be right on the money.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:45 pm

Eduardo X wrote: You can't have 2 favorites!

My bad. I didn't know we only got to choose one.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:46 pm

noun wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:You can't have 2 favorites!
Maybe not, but calling our current terrorist war plans a pre-emptive fairy tale would be right on the money.

Only for those that can't count.

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:55 pm

noun wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:You can't have 2 favorites!
Maybe not, but calling our current terrorist war plans a pre-emptive fairy tale would be right on the money.

But Red Riding Hood had to knock off Rumplestiltskin! He clearly had ties to the Big Bad Wolf AND was well on his way to acquiring a Pied Piper Flute!

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:08 pm

I think this one word rebuttal thing would work in many R&P threads. Certaintly it's more concise and possibly just as effective.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:14 pm

Bob wrote:I think this one word rebuttal thing would work in many R&P threads. Certaintly it's more concise and possibly just as effective.

But it doesn't consume nearly as much time, or allow us to measure our manliness by the length of our... posts.

- Ash

PS> Chrisoc: as someone who posted in the Overstated thread, I can say that not everyone believes Al Qaeda is dead. So there is no hypocrisy (that's how you spell it, BTW) in my believing that the Iraq war has made Al Qaeda stronger.

PPS> I love a thread where I can put the actually meaningful content in a PS.

noun · Post by **noun** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Only for those that can't count.

Count what? Bodies? Or dollars down the toilet?

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 pm

Haha,m thanks asharak, I read my post afterwards, but didnt feel like correcting it for my spelling errors, since I make them all too frequently, I never was any good at it.

I know that not everyone is being hypocritical about it, but some are, and it just gets old.

My take on this new development in Iraq is that in the long run, does it really matter? No matter what they wanted to kill us. Now they just pledged support to al queda, so they still want to kill us. Overall it isnt any different. Of course, this is a simplistic way of looking at it.

Faldarian · Post by **Faldarian** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:33 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.

Who do you propose we invade then? How is this making us safer from terrorism?

Notice that I titled the thread "the reason you don't invade countries to" rather than "why we shouldn't" fight terrorists. I never suggested we don't fight terrorists, I suggested that this shows one of the fundamental flaws in thinking that lead us into invading Iraq. We can easily stop nations from building larger armies and stockpiling weapons, but there's little we can do as a military force against smaller groups of terrorists when their ranks are made up of people who are largely only trackable through law enforcement measures rather than military intelligence.

And in the other thread people agreed that you don't live in fear of terrorism every day, not that that they weren't a threat. I'm not sure I remember anyone suggesting they weren't a threat at all.
CIA reports say Al Qaeda is as big or bigger than it was on 9/11, even prior to this news article.

Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 to bring muslims to their cause against America, not just because they're hateful murderers like the president likes to say.

They're hateful murderers with a purpose and when guys like this guy, who was actually viewed as a rival of bin Laden, start standing up and saying they'll follow his lead there's going to be problems.

Like I said, even if the president's assertion that the terrorist's resources were tied up in Iraq instead of here is true, they now have a ground force in Iraq and have their resources freed elsewhere to plan other attacks. That's why I think it's a major issue that this guy joined up with bin Laden; because the president was probably right about their resources being engaged in Iraq, where now that's not so much of an issue.

If we continue on the same course of action we are going to polarize the middle east into Us and Them factions, even moreso than it is already. Way too many people there already see our war on terror as a war on Islam, and the last thing we need is an all-out holy war on our hands if we ever want to know what relative peace is again.

This worries me because even though this guy is a radical as much as bin Laden it's a sign that these groups are trying to organize into a faction capable of fighting in a way other than their standard hit and run once every few years.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:43 am

Publicly dedicating yourself to fighting on the "terrorists home turf" so that the war is "over there, not over here" is an internationally stupid move. The countries we're invading, the homes we're bombing are not just "terrorist" homes or countries. They're Arab and Islamic homes, countries and mosques. Sure, the terrorists are going to hide. But when they hide and you don't know where they are but you start destroying "targets of opportunity" and allow lots of "collateral damage" then you've just created angry recruits who have an incentive to join, fight and die for the enemy. Iraq wasn't the "home of the terrorists" until we gave regular Iraqis a reason to join the cause.

President G.W. Bush is absolutely wrong -- democracy isn't the answer. It's just a process. When cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gains popularity by fighting the US, he's playing the right battle -- the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab and Islamic people. Our policies made the Arab world distrust us (rightly or wrongly), and now we're making them hate us.

Kschang77 · Post by **Kschang77** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:13 am

By putting American forces in harm's way, they make a much more closer and accessible target than the American homeland.

So in a sense, Bush's speech about fighting the war over terror "over there" is absolutely correct. The war is over there and thus there will be no "civilian casualties" on our side. It's our armed forces that's paying the price.

The truth is, no one really knew how big Al-Qaeda is until the war on terror (twin towers and such) brought them into the spotlight. All these "guesstimates" are just that... guesstimates.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:25 pm

Kschang77 wrote:By putting American forces in harm's way, they make a much more closer and accessible target than the American homeland.

So in a sense, Bush's speech about fighting the war over terror "over there" is absolutely correct. The war is over there and thus there will be no "civilian casualties" on our side. It's our armed forces that's paying the price.

The truth is, no one really knew how big Al-Qaeda is until the war on terror (twin towers and such) brought them into the spotlight. All these "guesstimates" are just that... guesstimates.

Do you really think that engaging the insurgents with our military in Iraq is preventing any strikes by AQ in America? I don't know why they haven't struck us again, but I'm pretty sure it's not because they're tied up in a war in Iraq.

Ale

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:32 pm

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:41 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:Yup, we should just sit on our ass and hope we don't get attacked again.
No! We should attack countries that have nothing to do with the people who attacked us! That is the plan for peace!
Preemptive
Usurp
This "favorite words" thread is fun!
Fairy Tale

Marmalade. Wait, are these supposed to make sense?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:54 pm

Kraegor · Post by **Kraegor** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:44 pm

pygmalion[/url]

Octopus Overlords

The reason you don't invade countries to fight terrorists.

The reason you don't invade countries to fight terrorists.

There's a good "conspiracy reason" if you want to

Re: There's a good "conspiracy reason" if you want