We all hoped that the war in Iraq was over but it seems it is back to the war on terror
Baghdad blasts 'kill 64, injure 600' | News.com.au Top stories | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26258120-2,00.html)
The people of Iraq are from from being able to govern themselves and yet it seems the only realistic alternative is to let them do it

There was some voices a while ago that suggested we should open negotiations up with the taliban

I have no idea if it would work, but all I can say is this

After growing up with the threat of bombings and shootings with the IRA for all of my younger life, terrorism usually creates a stalemate

The only way the IRA and the British Government were going to resolve the issue is through talking

It has taken along time, and is still ongoing, but at least the bombings have stopped

I don't know if Iraq is at that point yet, but until they are, the bombings in my opinon will continue

Steve it took a lot longer than eight years to get to the point of talking in Ireland and the Irish weren't quite as fanatical as the Muslims, besides the irish had an army of occupation to focus on too. That has now been removed in iraq and they have only their old enmities to work out

At present, oil is now being or about to be pumped by western comppanies, this will bring guaranteed payments to the Iraq Government by companies that aren't generally interested in being dodgy

The new cash will help them to install and maintain a better infracture, on top of what we have put in place

The forces in Iraq are and will continue to be trained by our nations, and so educated in the best techniques available

Support will be given when ever necessary as long the government will continue to follow the system that was agreed upon

All of this will help the iraqs' to build up a country that has been ripped apart

None of this will stop the fanatics who think coward bombings against innocent people will help their cause

Iraq will continue to fight the terrorists, and the terrorists will continue to fight, all of which will end in stalemate

At this point, talking will commence

This is why terrorists are so effective, you cannot beat them as everyone you kill you create another as the person you killed was somebodys son, brother, father and as such it is an inevitable cycle

Its not an army, or navy, that can be destroyed on the field of battle, stalemate is the only conclusion to a terrorism campaign

These issues in Iraq, and afghanistan will take a generation or two to be sorted out

afghanistan will take a generation or two to be sorted out

Why would you think that the tribes in the Afghani region will only take a couple of generations more to get sorted out, when they haven't gotten along in eight millennia that we know about? That's like thinking Jerusalem will be peaceful this time next year.

Why would you think that the tribes in the Afghani region will only take a couple of generations more to get sorted out, when they haven't gotten along in eight millenia that we know about? That's like thinking Jerusalem will be peaceful this time next year.

I was answering how it works with Iraq mostly, the afghan instability at the moment is with the troops vs the taliban, and as such it will take to sort out

As regards the mountain regions involved around Afgahanistan and Pakistan, that's who knows if ever, but the main threat is from the taliban and that will take time to sort out

Clete ,they are governing themselves. VI day should've been declared last year when all the formalities were ironed out.

The bombing this weekend was not AQ and not insurgency. It was gangland violent "the Chicago way" .

Coaltion troops are there at the disposal of the government if they request it. Otherwise they take the lead in all counter-insurgency/anti-terrorism-security operations.

USA today greatly over simplifies the situation .But I'll post their report anyway.
U.S. troops in Iraq have time on hands - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-10-20-idle-troops-iraq_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)

Here Washington Compost's David Ignatius take on the mass homicide attack . Note that if President Bush were still in office the headline would read :Worst day of violence shows President's policy a failure .....

But since President BO is in charge the article waxes positive and by default portrays a more honest assessment than they would normally publish.



resilient Baghdad on a day of horror

By David Ignatius
Monday, October 26, 2009
BAGHDAD From the air Sunday morning, this looked like a city restored. You could see paddle boats skimming the pond at Zawra Park, and go-karts and waterslides. And in every direction, new schools and soccer fields and bustling warehouses -- all taking shape under the canopy of the new Iraq.
But down below, it turned out to be a morning from hell. Terrorists exploded two massive car bombs at the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad provincial administration, killing more than 100 and wounding more than 500. It was the worst day of violence this year, and it was, as the terrorists intended, a reminder of the fragility of Iraqi security.
Around the time the bombers struck, I was flying over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter with Gen. David Petraeus. As commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2008, he helped restore stability here. He was returning Sunday as Centcom commander, and he decided on his way in from the airport to conduct one of his careening airborne tours of the city, which he used to make so frequently that the helicopter pilots gave them the code name "Purple Rain."
The signs of recovery seemed to be everywhere. "See, the houses are occupied again," Petraeus said, pointing to a neighborhood that several years ago was a virtual ghost town. "Always good to see a crane," he said, motioning to a new construction site. "Traffic jam, that's good to see."
Petraeus pointed out the evidence of normality -- the schools, the police stations, the sports stadiums, the bus and train stations, the parks and markets and riverside restaurants. And, to be honest, the city, seen in panorama, reminded me of the Baghdad I first visited in 1981, big and burly and, for an Arab city, fairly well organized.
We didn't learn about the horrific bombings until we landed in the Green Zone. I guess that tells you something about the difference between life, close up, and what you see from several hundred feet. On the ground, all those freshly painted new ministries and bustling Baghdadis are, to the terrorists, just so many targets.
When the bombs exploded, an Iraqi friend told me later, the cellphone system temporarily crashed, as people frantically called to see if their loved ones were safe. Foreigners may forget that, when they see the endless Baghdad carnage on television, Iraqis are people just like everyone else; they love their spouses and children and grandparents just as much as you and I do. When service went back to normal, my friend said, he had 30 text messages asking if he was all right.
While Petraeus was off visiting officials, I had lunch with two Iraqi friends at the Al-Rashid Hotel. The last time I had eaten there was in October 2003, when I was traveling with Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense. That was the famous trip when the Al-Rashid was hit by rockets; I watched them arc toward the hotel from a blue cart several hundred yards away. For many people, that was a day when a new darkness enveloped the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday's terrible bombings. "In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode," said one. "There is no way it will slip back," insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness.
Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: "Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?"
As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport. "Baghdad can be a cruel place," he told me. "You have to keep a grip on your hopes." But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning's events.
Petraeus surveyed the cityscape at night. "People are back out in the parks," he said. "All the lights are on, cars are driving around." I asked later if he thought Sunday's violence would lead people to request that American troops return to the cities, and he shook his head: "Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraqis will respond to this."


washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502033.html?hpid=topnews)

Phlanx,

I'm no expert on IRA/British affairs.

But I suspect that before the IRA was willing to sit down at the table, the British police and military had to create an environment in which the IRA was taking enough casualties to make peace seem to be a better alternative. They had to make the cost to the IRA so high that peace was preferable to continued terrorist operations. Am I right?

And there is a major difference between IRA terrorists and Jihadi terrorists. The IRA terrorists tended not to be suiciders. They didn't believe that they needed to DIE for the cause... they preferred, in fact, to live if they could. The Muslim terrorists, by contrast, WANT to die for their cause.

The type of negotiating that you are talking about works if both sides would prefer to live.

How do you negotiate with a terrorist group that prefers DEATH to life?

When the Brits sat down with the IRA leadership, it was with the understanding that BOTH SIDES would prefer that the violence end, and that people on both sides stop dying.

But there can be no such understanding with Muslim Jihadis, because they DON'T prefer to end the violence and stop the death. Their death for the "cause" is what gets them into heaven.

The only way that we can create conditions for meaningful negotiation would be to make the cost of terrorism so high that they see no choice but to negotiate. Since they don't mind dying for the cause, there is no way to create that environment.

The only alternative is to wipe out so many of the terrorists that they become to weak to be anything more than a minor problem. You can't wipe them out completely... there will always be ONE that escapes. But you can eliminate so many of them that they become too weak to be a major force in the area. You can, at the same time, build up your own strength so that fighting them becomes a winning proposition every time you face them.

In short, the only way to defeat MIDDLE EASTERN terrorism is by dominating them through overwhelming force and making them too weak to fight back. Negotiation is not a viable option as it was with the IRA.

Elliot

Coaltion troops are there at the disposal of the government if they request it. Otherwise they take the lead in all counter-insurgency/anti-terrorism-security operations.

]

Obviously they haven't requested it Tom and despite the escalation in violence the US troops continue to withdraw from an active role in Iraq. So these matters have now become local police matters with the consequence of bigger and better bombs, I don't know how anyone could declare VI day in such circumstances, it is a flight of fancy

Phlanx,



In short, the only way to defeat MIDDLE EASTERN terrorism is by dominating them through overwhelming force and making them too weak to fight back. Negotiation is not a viable option as it was with the IRA.

Elliot

So I see Elliot you favour the Israeli solution send in the bulldozers and punish the family of the bomber or send your soldiers to sweep through the streets forcing the terrorists to reveal themselves, not quite so easy when you have an armed population. I understand that both the solutions might work in certain circumstance, militant populations have had to be subdued in a number of places. Don't you see that domination is the problem, this is what they react to

So I see Elliot you favour the Israeli solution send in the bulldozers and punish the family of the bomber or send your soldiers to sweep through the streets forcing the terrorists to reveal themselves, not quite so easy when you have an armed population.

Well, yes. And I've made my position on this clear long ago. I do support it. And the fact that every time Israel has done it, instances of terrorist attacks have DECREASED should prove its effectiveness.



I understand that both the solutions might work in certain circumstance, militant populations have had to be subdued in a number of places. Don't you see that domination is the problem, this is what they react to

Sure I do. However, what I see is that when they perceive WEAKNESS they attack. When they perceive STRENGTH, they back off. It's easy to tell the world to not dominate the Palestinians or the other Muslim terrorist groups when you are not in the line of fire. But what the world has seen over and over again is this pattern of strength vs. weakness. Which means that the way to prevent violence is through a show superior strength.

Therefore the only solution to bring peace to the region is one causes the costs of terrorism to be HIGHER than the costs of peace.

Peace through strength.

Or as the Book of Psalms says: "G-d will give His nation strength, G-d will Bless His nation with peace." Only through strength can peace be achieved. It's a lesson as old as the Bible, learned on the same sands over which Arabs and Jews continue to fight today. The lesson is as applicable today as it was then.

Elliot

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2053105]Well, yes. And I've made my position on this clear long ago. I do support it. And the fact that every time Israel has done it, instances of terrorist attacks have DECREASED should prove its effectiveness.

Oh yeah - real effective, it is just a question that it takes time for them to reorganise before they go at it again

They have been fighting each other now for ages, and as such the argument is really just glitter over the facts, both sides want revenge for the other side killing a family member of theirs

Until both sides either generally stop and allow mediation to happen and for both sides to recognise each other, than this will continue - flashing up every few years

Elliot don't you realise that Gazans have nothing to loose and they will fight to the very last man if they are forced to

That is called genocide, if you flex your strength over a weaker side to the point of wiping them out culturally, the next step is The Hague, where funnily enough Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic trial has started today for exactly that act

And the fact that every time Israel has done it, instances of terrorist attacks have DECREASED should prove its effectiveness.


Yes the difference between efficient and effective, what was done in Gaza was effective it appears, rocket attacks have decreased, very efficient, but has it solved the problem. The root cause remains.

Willthe same tactics give Pakistan peace with the Taliban, probably not. Will the same tactics bring peace to Afghanistan. There are not enough troops to tacle the militants in a confined space and gain a decisive victory.

All any of these campaigns has demonstrated is that the actual numbers of combatants might be few.


Sure I do. However, what I see is that when they perceive WEAKNESS they attack. When they perceive STRENGTH, they back off. It's easy to tell the world to not dominate the Palestinians or the other Muslim terrorist groups when you are not in the line of fire. But what the world has seen over and over again is this pattern of strength vs. weakness. Which means that the way to prevent violence is through a show superior strength.


Elliot

So you think the Palestinians attack Israel because they think it weak, no they attack because they want change and they see the only way is through armed conflict. They want their voice to be heard as it has not been heard in the last 60 years

The Taliban don't attack US forces because they think they are weak, they know that they cannot win in open battle, but they hope to convince the US to give up as they saw the Russians give up. The US sent the signal that Afghanistan was a low priority and the Taliban took heart. We are no longer in the position where the Afghanis face a battalion or two as they did with the British, but there are large numbers of disaffected Afghani's from which to recruit. This is the same situation we saw played out with the Palestinians, years of living in displaced peoples camps bred a population of terrorists.

[quote=ETWolverine;2053105]Well, yes. And I've made my position on this clear long ago. I do support it. And the fact that every time Israel has done it, instances of terrorist attacks have DECREASED should prove its effectiveness.

Oh yeah - real effective, it is just a question that it takes time for them to reorganise before they go at it again

They have been fighting each other now for ages, and as such the argument is really just glitter over the facts, both sides want revenge for the other side killing a family member of theirs

Until both sides either generally stop and allow mediation to happen and for both sides to recognise each other, than this will continue - flashing up every few years

Elliot dont you realise that Gazans have nothing to loose and they will fight to the very last man if they are forced to

That is called genocide, if you flex your strength over a weaker side to the point of wiping them out culturally, the next step is The Hague, where funnily enough Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic trial has started today for exactly that act

Are you really one of those people who believes that Israel is out to commit genocide against the Palestinians?

Having served in the Israeli military for a short time, I can tell you that it just ain't true.

In fact, Israel spent the period between 1967 and 1987 building the infrastructure of the Palestinians... electricity, water system, sewer system, roads, schools, libraries... all paid for with Israeli money. That period was generally a fairly peaceful time for Israeli and the Palestinians. There were occaisional incidents, but generally, it was peaceful.

Then in 1987 the first Intifada hit. The Palestinians started attacking Jews living in Israel. Their stated goal was to ELIMINATE EVERY JEW FROM ISRAEL and take it over in its entirety. THEIR GOAL was genocide.

Israel fought back. Not with the intent of destroying the Palestinians, but rather with the intent of getting them to back off. The Israelis tried "non-lethal" methods of fighting back... tear gas, rubber bullets, stun grenades. None of it worked, and because Israel had showed that it was willing to be merciful, it resulted in INCREASED TERRORIST ATTACKS by the Palestinians against Israel. Between 1987 and 1992 there were literally HUNDREDS of suicide bombings against Israel, which resulted in the deaths of some of my friends. And STILL Israel refused to take lethal action... the invaded the Palestinian territories, but they made sure to limit civilian casualties, and instead knocked down empty houses. And all the time, Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Perez continued to negotiate in good faith for peace... agreeing in the midst of all the terrorist attacks and violence to give up large tracts of Israeli land in the West Bank, including Israeli cities in the Hebron area.

This resulted in the Oslo Accords, signed by Perez, Rabin and Arafat... and immediately violated by Arafat.

Then came the Whye Accords, also signed, and also violated by Arafat.

And every time a peace agreement was signed, the Intifada, the violence, the terrorist attacks would increase... because Arafat and the Palestinians saw weakness in such attempts at peace. Between 2000 and now, there have been literally THOUSANDS of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, because such peace attempts were seen as weakness.

For almost two decades, Israel tried again and again to negotiate for peace. In 2005, without any requirement to do so, Israel UNILATERALLY disengaged from Gaza, removing tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes.

The result was that the mortars and rockets were moved to the new border, and Israel has continued to be bombed, day in and day out for the past 4 years. Since 2000, through January 2009, Israel has suffered over 8600 missile and rocket and mortar attacks from lands that it gave up in the attempt to negotiate for peace.

So... every time that Israel has taken the "high road" and attempted to attain peace, it has been attacked. And every time that they have fought back against such attacks, the attacks were silenced for a time.

What would you have Israel do?

You are worried about Israel overreacting in their attempts to suppress these attacks? What constitutes "overreaction" after 8600 missile attacks?

Do you really equate the destruction of empty buildings in Gaza with "genocide"? And what of the PA's attempts and stated goal to eradicate all Jews from Israel? What about the genocide of Jews?

Do you really equate how Israel has acted with the Palestinians with genocide? Unilateral pullouts, peace agreements signed that were violated by their enemies, attempts to negotiate new agreements after those violations occurred... does that sound like genocide to you?

Come on, Phlanx... you are too intelligent to fall for UN propaganda and BBC talking points.

I'm not saying that Israeli soldiers haven't over-reacted at times. They have. But Israel punishes such violations, they don't make them policy. Whereas the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews and complete takeover of the land is the stated goal of the PA, and continues to be part of the Palestinian Authority's (originally the PLO) charter. It has never been recanted or changed, and neither have their actions changed.

So before you go bandying about terms like "genocide" and applying it to the actions of the Israelis, I suggest that you look at the facts on the ground rather than the UN talking points. Genocide is the LAST thing going on in the PA.

I suggest that you listen to Bibi Netanyahu's recent speech to the UN. He argues the case better than I ever could, and is well-armed with the facts to back it up.

On a personal note (not speaking from the point of view of Israel, but merely for myself), if knocking down a few empty houses is what it takes to stop the rocket attacks, then I say go for it. And if the Palestinians in Gaza are willing to fight to the last man, as you say... I'm willing to oblige them.

Elliot

I have to say, that regardless of what outcomes either side wants, if your neighbours start to throw rockets at you, you have to go round a kick them in the butt - I think everybody would agree that you can't let any country attack you without a rsponse

Nice reading Elliot

Hello clete:

There are some on this board, who declared victory in Iraq. They were wrong. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Ok, I'll say something. The dufus broke it sooooo badly, that I'm not sure if it'll get fixed in my lifetime... Same thing with Afghanistan...

War is NOT the way to defeat terrorism. We should have learned that by now. What was it, 19 people attacked us, and THIS is our response?? Trillions and trillions of $$$'s, lots of dead Americans and many many more dead Muslims.

Dude! This ain't it.

excon

Hello clete:

There are some on this board, who declared victory in Iraq. They were wrong. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Ok, I'll say something. The dufus broke it sooooo badly, that I'm not sure if it'll get fixed in my lifetime... Same thing with Afghanistan...

War is NOT the way to defeat terrorism. We shoulda learned that by now. What was it, 19 people attacked us, and THIS is our response?????? Trillions and trillions of $$$'s, lots of dead Americans and many many more dead Muslims.

Dude! This ain't it.

excon

After 9-11 I think everyone can agree that someone had to get it in response to such atrocity

I don't think you can beat teroorism, only reason with it, by vitue of its nature, it will not stop until the last man is dead which is never going to happen, so both sides have to get sick of fighting before talks can begin

Hello clete:

There are some on this board, who declared victory in Iraq. They were wrong. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Ok, I'll say something. The dufus broke it sooooo badly, that I'm not sure if it'll get fixed in my lifetime... Same thing with Afghanistan...

War is NOT the way to defeat terrorism. We shoulda learned that by now. What was it, 19 people attacked us, and THIS is our response?????? Trillions and trillions of $$$'s, lots of dead Americans and many many more dead Muslims.

Dude! This ain't it.

excon

So... how do you defeat terrorism?

With all the breadth of experience throughout the world in dealing with terrorists... all the effective methods and all the ineffective methods that we have seen used all over the world in all sorts of circumstances... all the historical information available at our fingertips... what is the best way to defeat terrorism?

Please, enlighten us.

Elliot

So... how do you defeat terrorism? Please, enlighten us.Hello Elliot:

Through police action and diplomacy. You are hereby enlightened.

excon

Hello Elliot:

Through police action and diplomacy. You are hereby enlightened.

excon

Police action? Can you please give us an example of someplace where that has worked to stop Islamic terrorism? And how would that work? Would cops be able to arrest the terrorists who are dropping mortars, rpgs and missiles on them? How would they gather evidence against their perps in the middle of a battle? At what point would they mirandize the perps? What would the mechanics of such an operation look like?

Diplomacy with whom? And given the amount of Diplomacy that Israel has performed with terrorists over the past 3 decades and the continued lack of peace Israel experiences with its terrorist neighbors, do you really think that diplomacy has been an effective method of stopping terrorism? Can you give us an example of a case where Diplomacy has succeeded in stoping Islamic terrorism?

Again, if you are going to enlighten us, you must show us HOW it will work by giving examples of where it has been successful and teaching us the mechanics of a successful operation.

Otherwise, you're just full of crap.

Anyone care to take bets on which it is?

Elliot

Police action? Can you please give us an example of someplace where that has worked to stop Islamic terrorism? And how would that work? Would cops be able to arrest the terrorists who are dropping mortars, rpgs and missiles on them? How would they gather evidence against their perps in the middle of a battle? At what point would they mirandize the perps? What would the mechanics of such an operation look like?

Diplomacy with whom? And given the amount of Diplomacy that Israel has performed with terrorists over the past 3 decades and the continued lack of peace Israel experiences with its terrorist neighbors, do you really think that diplomacy has been an effective method of stopping terrorism? Can you give us an example of a case where Diplomacy has succeeded in stoping Islamic terrorism?

Again, if you are going to enlighten us, you must show us HOW it will work by giving examples of where it has been successful and teaching us the mechanics of a successful operation.

Otherwise, you're just full of crap.

Anyone care to take bets on which it is?

Elliot

I will chip in here

1. Police Action Northern Ireland: police clampdown amid fears of major terror attack | UK news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/20/northern-ireland-police-terror-ira)

2. Diplomacy = Good Friday Agreement

I believe that terrorists and the game they play are the same in the world, it just the cause they fight for that differs, and as such excon is right with Police Action and Diplomacy

I will chip in here

1. Police Action Northern Ireland: police clampdown amid fears of major terror attack | UK news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/20/northern-ireland-police-terror-ira)

Phlanx,

Police actions are not good in military combat situations, which is what we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Police can clamp down against terrorists who want to place hidden bombs. They don't do much good against military attacks by mortar and RPG. The situation you put forward is NOT COMPARABLE to the Islamic terrorism that we are facing in the Middle East.


2. Diplomacy = Good Friday Agreement

But with whom? Who is the leader of Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is actually an umbrella group of HUNDREDS of individual terrorist groups worldwide. So who do we negotiate with?

Second of all, as I pointed out before, it is (relatively) easy to set up diplomacy with a group that wants to live as badly as you do and wants to end violence in order to save his own life. It is much tougher to create an environment of diplomacy when the terrorists have no objection to dying for their cause and therefore have no reason to end the violence. Again, the situation you put forward does not compare to the situation in the Middle East.


I believe that terrorists and the game they play are the same in the world, it just the cause they fight for that differs, and as such excon is right with Police Action and Diplomacy

Then that is where you are mistaken. The methods of the IRA were not those of suicide tactics. The IRA terrorists wanted to live as much as their British enemies did. They were not suicide bombers. They believed that the way to win was to kill there enemy, not do die themselves. By contrast the Muslim terrorists believe that dying for the cause is a goal in and of itself. They INVITE death. They don't fear death, and they have no great need to live. Thus, convincing them to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith is a lost cause, and results in broken agreements and more terrorism, not peace.

Israel tried using the Good Friday Agreement as a model for their negotiations with the Palestinians. It fell apart in 2000 because Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith. That sort of diplomacy, which made sense to the Western mind (including the members of the IRA), doesn't work for Islamic terrorists.

That's why I worded my question as I did... "Can you please give us an example of someplace where that has worked to stop Islamic terrorism?" Because what worked for the IRA is ineffective for Islamic terrorists.

Elliot

1. It is the now the repsonnsibility of the Iraq police and armed forces to clamp down on their attackers, only a combined effort between the two will help to reduce the attacks to a minimum

2. The IRA were not the only faction in northern ireland that had to have discussions, however, they were the strongest and as such had the most say over what their area did

Terrorism is terrorism, it doesn't matter how the bombs were delivered, they are delivered

The taliban are the strongest of the tribes or groups in Afganistan, and as such they have the power of the hundred or so other tribes that wish to lay claim to something

So if you wish to speak to the main party there you go

Al Qaeda, is the same, there are avenues available to the allies to speak to them if they wish

To my knoweldge, this has not happened and probably will not happen for a while

But Elliot, if you think terrorists are different because they have a different faith, cause, or style then I am afraid you are wrong.

I would have thought you would understand that if you spent time in Israel

1. It is the now the repsonnsibility of the Iraq police and armed forces to clamp down on their attackers, only a combined effort between the two will help to reduce the attacks to a minimum

Yes... but who do you think has the lead in combat? Fact is that fighting terrorism in the Middle East is a MILITARY operation, not a police operation.


2. The IRA were not the only faction in northern ireland that had to have discussions, however, they were the strongest and as such had the most say over what their area did

True.

Which is the strongest Al Qaeda group?


Terrorism is terrorism, it doesn't matter how the bombs were delivered, they are delivered

Actually it makes a HUGE difference in how terrorism is fought and stopped.


The taliban are the strongest of the tribes or groups in Afganistan, and as such they have the power of the hundred or so other tribes that wish to lay claim to something

So if you wish to speak to the main party there you go

Which tribe of Taliban is the strongest? How do you know? How long will that last?


Al Qaeda, is the same, there are avenues available to the allies to speak to them if they wish

Which group is the strongest? Most of the time the various AQ groups operate independently. No one group controls the others. So who do we negotiate with?


To my knoweldge, this has not happened and probably will not happen for a while

There's a reason for that.


But Elliot, if you think terrorists are different because they have a different faith, cause, or style then I am afraid you are wrong.

I would have thought you would understand that if you spent time in Israel

Actually, the first lesson that I learned in the Israeli military is to NOT assume that all terrorist groups are the same. What worked in Ireland DOESN'T work in Israel. It's been tried and failed. Again, the main reason is that IRA terrorists wanted to live, while Islamic terrorists want to die. An attacker who doesn't care what happens to himself is MUCH harder to stop than one who prefers escape. This is the first rule that bodyguards learn as well... an assassin with a death wish is liklier to succeed in his mission than one trying to maintain an escape option. Because they think differently, they ACT differently, and the ways of dealing with the threats are therefore different.

An IRA terrorist CANNOT be compared to an ISLAMIC terrorist. And you can ask any former IRA terrorist about it and find out what he thinks. (I actually did... a former IRA guy became a sniper-trainer in Israel several years ago, and I met him while I was there. He made it very clear that fighting Muslim terrorists is a very different bag of nuts from fighting his former IRA buddies for the very reasons that I have explained.)

Elliot

So the police in Iraq have no operations to help control maters - shame you don't your facts

Leave that up to your CIA to find out who is the strongest - do you really think CNN is going to report on every detail that the intelligent services has?

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth, I NEVER said the IRA were like this or that, I have stated several times, and this is the last time, that the likely hood of victory without diplomacy is slim

As you state, if you can't beat someone down into submission because the terorists except death, then the only way forward is to talk

You keep referring to how the game is played, I keep stating that the game will end up the same

If you don't wish to understand that diplomacy is the only way out of this mess, then what do you suggest - keep at it till one side is completely wiped out?

In the Muslim world it's called hudna.

Hello Elliot:

Through police action and diplomacy. You are hereby enlightened.

excon

So after 911, Bush should have declared martial law in the US, while starting diplomatic talks with AQ? I thought you were against the Patriot Act, but are now suggesting "police action" in the US for terrorism whose source is from abroad? Huh?


G&P

So after 911, Bush should have declared martial law in the US, while starting diplomatic talks with AQ? I thought you were against the Patriot Act, but are now suggesting "police action" in the US for terrorism whose source is from abroad? Huh?Hello in:

Police action, doesn't mean action by the police. We're fighting an insurgency with troops trained to fight in tanks on the open battlefield. It's using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. We spend all our resources and the fly is still around... I.E. Osama Bin Laden.

We don't need and army to win. In fact, the army gets in the way. We need well executed surgical police actions. Our special forces are well trained to handle this stuff.

excon

So the police in Iraq have no operations to help control maters - shame you don't your facts

The police in Iraq have no operational control over COMBAT OPERATIONS.


Leave that up to your CIA to find out who is the strongest - do you really think CNN is going to report on every detail that the intelligent services has?

What I think is that the CIA knows that the answer to that question is CONSTANTLY in flux... and it doesn't really matter anyway since the factions are not in any form of connection with each other. Dealing with one doesn't mean obtaining an agreement with another. If you go that route, you'll end up negotiating forever and not getting a binding agreement on ANYONE.


Again you are trying to put words in my mouth, I NEVER said the IRA were like this or that, I have stated several times, and this is the last time, that the likely hood of victory without diplomacy is slim

And I say that the likelihood of diplomacy is slim. The likelihood of diplomacy resulting in victory is nonexistant.


As you state, if you can't beat someone down into submission because the terorists except death, then the only way forward is to talk

No. In that scenario, the have no reason to wish to talk. Therefore the only solution is give the terrorist his wish... kill him.


You keep referring to how the game is played, I keep stating that the game will end up the same

No. One road leads to meaningless diplomatic discussions with no solution and no reduction of violence, just like Israel has experienced since 1987. The other road leads to a lot of dead terrorists, reduced violence due to fewer operatives and greater SECURITY (even if there is no peace agreement).


If you don't wish to understand that diplomacy is the only way out of this mess, then what do you suggest - keep at it till one side is completely wiped out?

NOW you've got it. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we keep at it until the terrorists have been either completely wiped out or are so deeply in hiding that they cannot perform terrorist operations.

And before you say it, no I am not suggesting genocide. I'm suggesting wiping out all TERRORISTS, not all Muslims. Unless you are suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists (which I know you are not), one does not equate to the other.

I am suggesting that our goal should be the complete and utter destruction of all terrorists everywhere in the world.

Not peace with terrorists.

Not diplomacy with terrorists.

Not political or diplomatic recognition of terrorists.

DESTRUCTION of terrorists.

Elliot

Hello in:

Police action, doesn't mean action by the police. We're fighting an insurgency with troops trained to fight in tanks on the open battlefield. It's using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. We spend all our resources and the fly is still around... I.E. Osama Bin Laden.

We don't need and army to win. In fact, the army gets in the way. We need well executed surgical police actions. Our special forces are well trained to handle this stuff.

excon

I thought it was ILLEGAL to have "assasination squads," though in the case of OBL, Iw ould definitely be in favor. Then again, someone else would fill the power vacuum. I can't imagine that in the PC political world, where some are conccerned that terrorists are not granted Geneva convention or even US bill of rights protection, that assassination squads would be legally approved of.


G&P

Hello clete:

There are some on this board, who declared victory in Iraq. They were wrong. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Ok, I'll say something. The dufus broke it sooooo badly, that I'm not sure if it'll get fixed in my lifetime... Same thing with Afghanistan...

War is NOT the way to defeat terrorism. We shoulda learned that by now. What was it, 19 people attacked us, and THIS is our response?????? Trillions and trillions of $$$'s, lots of dead Americans and many many more dead Muslims.

Dude! This ain't it.

excon

Yes ex this is why you guys always appear over the top to the rest of us, but what else could you do in Afghanistan, 9/11 was state sponsored terrorism, and so the Taliban government wasn't about to hand over the criminals.

Look the US had had success in making Gaddafi pull his head in and I expect they thought the same might be possible in Afghanistan but negotiating at the point of a gun rarely works.

The big mistake was declaring a war on terror, that sort of rhetoric has to be backed up otherwise you appear stupid