[ETWolverine]

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

[phlanx]

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

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

[ETWolverine]

I will chip in here

1. Police Action Northern Ireland: police clampdown amid fears of major terror attack | UK news | The Observer

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

[phlanx]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[phlanx]

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?

[tomder55]

In the Muslim world it's called hudna.

[inthebox]

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

[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?

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[inthebox]

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

[paraclete]

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