War on Terror Out; Counterterrorism In

Right on target. Terrorism is criminal and should be fought in that way.

thats the whole idea suk out all you can get out of it, and theres people on both sides to terrorise each other to keep it goigng,for its all for one, or for none , go figure

Yes, we should make sure ro "accommodate" these bastards. A bullet to the dome is the only answer for these rabid dogs.

"Political accomodation"? That's a new euphemism for rollover and play dead! Try that one on the next armed robber coming to your house....

You cannot "accomodate" people who are sworn to kill you, your children, and end your way of life. But if we ARE going to attempt this, can we test the premise in San Francisco, Berkeley, New York, Philadelphia and Austin, Tx? That way, if it works, liberals and other leftists can finally and accurately claim to be correct on something.

MSO4 wrote:

Yes, we should make sure ro "accommodate" these bastards. A bullet to the dome is the only answer for these rabid dogs.

The report doesnt say we should accomodate terrorism. The report says history shows we should use strong intell, legal and policing actions, to kill out a terrorist group.

The report says terrorism will always exist. Its the terrorist groups that come and go.

That said, the Rand Group, which is conservative, and includes members like Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby (believe it or not, but thats how neo-conservative they are) says the military should not be used to kill out a terrorist group.

Instead, it says to use strong intelligence, LEGAL and policing actions to capture terrorists and KILL the leaders. It states there is no battleground to send an Military army to to fight a "war on terrorism" against a terrorist group.

I repeat, the report states that a terrorist group cannot be taken out until it's leaders are KILLED. Using the military in Iraq to take out low low low level al-queda groupies that just joined the day before they got killed by our troops does nothing to end the terrorist group.

Instead it probably grows it. That last statement was purely my opinion.

Everything else was from the study.

Sad thing is, folks like you would hear that there is another opinion on dealing with terrorism other than the options Bush picked and you automatically think it's something about "accomodating the terrorists".

This report says anything but. I gotta agree with the conservative think tank because I've always felt that there was no al-queda army in Iraq to attack. Terrorists don't get deployed and fight in mass on some battlefield...they are worldwide.

We could kill every person in Iraq and still have al-queda running strong.

Get the leadership of al-queda.

Anything else is truly ACCOMODATION AL-QUEDA LEADERSHIP by letting them live, and fueling thier ranks and financial support with Bush's current actions.

A nuclear bullit right on top of Mecca.

MSO4 wrote:

Yes, we should make sure ro "accommodate" these bastards. A bullet to the dome is the only answer for these rabid dogs.

These so called ‘terrorists’ that we are fighting…they are winning. They have played us right where they want us. Dumbass bush just keeps falling for more and more.
The ‘terrorists’ know exactly what to do to destroy the US. They are destroying us by destroying the economy.

While the cost of lives is high:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

The main objective of the ‘terrorists’ is to continue this:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_h...

Which contributes to this:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin...

They don’t want to fight us on our soil. They want us to travel and spend billions to occupy.
Remember, the war is over. Iraq is an occupation. An occupation can not be ‘won’. It is a forever. The ‘terrorists’ know it. They are winning. The have destroyed our economy.
bush can lie about the economy all he wants. Every American is feeling it. We are losing. We may have already lost.

Sgt Friday wrote:

"Political accomodation"? That's a new euphemism for rollover and play dead! Try that one on the next armed robber coming to your house....

No, thats a euphemism for what was done in the U.K. for what was the first international terrorist group, the I.R.A.

Which was, "you either make your demands legally, or we keep using our police forces to arrest your folks and kill your leaders".

Believe or not, the I.R.A. is a legal political party in thier system, and the group no longer is listed as a international terrorist group.

Now they aren't saying make al-queda a party in the U.S.

However the report is suggesting that based on the ways terrorist groups were ended before, the options below should be used instead of using an army deployed in a region
- Kill the leaders of al-queda
- Political accomodate those wanna-be's who would eventually rise to al-queda leadership. Meaning, you want to start a political party and try to get your way that way...go for it.

Anything other than that, you get what happen to your criminal leaders.

Thats "Political Accomodation".

You folks gotta stop getting a 5 second soundbyte in your head about international politics. Its ridiculous to assume anyone wants to "roll over and die" to a terrorists groups demands.

Pathaway wrote:

Right on target. Terrorism is criminal and should be fought in that way.

Bill Clinton also thought it should be treated as a criminal act when the World Trade Center was attacked in '93. As a result, 3,000 innocent Americans died on 9-11. President Bush treated 9-11 as an act of war and America has not been attacked in the 2,500 days since. Al Qaeda is in shambles with most all their leaders dead, in prison or shaking in their sandals waiting for the silent death of a killer drone. George W Bush' way is the ONLY way to deal with terrorists.

We need to be more aggressive in assassinating known terrorists the world over, and their benefactors.

OneRyder wrote:

<quoted text>

You folks gotta stop getting a 5 second soundbyte in your head about international politics. Its ridiculous to assume anyone wants to "roll over and die" to a terrorists groups demands.

You must have forgotten that Clinton had te chance to take out Osama and he didn't. Not so ridiculous to expect another president who would do that again, is it? Especially if he turns out to be an Islam symphatizer...

Well, no kidding.

You mean Dick Cheney's monsters-under-the-bed speeches every year right before Election Day were just baseless scare tactics to keep the Republicans in office ?

You mean President Cheney was an idiot for invading Iraq and killing their leader ?

You mean the Republicans have bankrupted the United States economy for nothing ?

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago ?
If not, then throw the Republican bums out !

"War on ______" fill in the blank. Drugs, Terror, we seem to be constantly declaring war on something - and none of them seem to work out very well in the long run.

Wars are fought between nations defended by military forces. You know you've won the "war" when you're having a beer in the other guy's officer's club.

You can't declare war on "terror" because terror is an idea. Its a tactic - not an enemy.

Worse, we can't even agree on a reasonable definition of "terrorism". If we take a stab at it and say that terrorism is "using violence or the threat of violence against non-combatant civilians to advance a military or political objective" which seems like a reasonable definition to me, then "we the people" have engaged in "terrorism" that would make Caligula vomit (for the ultra-nationalist who will be offended by that statement, read "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown).

Whats next? A "war" on post-nasal drip?

McCain is an Islam sympathizer ?!

Where's Jack Bauer when we need him?

Sgt.Friday said:
" Try that one on the next armed robber coming to your house...."
__________
Gee, you have lots of armed robbers coming to your house ? How many ? How often ? Have you thought of installing an alarm ? What do you have that's so valuable that everybody is trying to come to your house to steal it ? Usually people don't have much trouble like that unless they're dealing drugs. Are you dealing drugs ? Have you thought about getting a killer attack cat ? Must be a rough neighborhood. I'd move.

Fighting fire with fire works for fighting forest fires but is of no use in a house fire.

Fresh Look wrote:

<quoted text> Bill Clinton also thought it should be treated as a criminal act when the World Trade Center was attacked in '93. As a result, 3,000 innocent Americans died on 9-11. President Bush treated 9-11 as an act of war and America has not been attacked in the 2,500 days since. Al Qaeda is in shambles with most all their leaders dead, in prison or shaking in their sandals waiting for the silent death of a killer drone. George W Bush' way is the ONLY way to deal with terrorists.

Bush ignoring a memo stating "Bin Laden intent to attack within US" killed 3000 Americans. He allowed it to happen. Our Hero!! And then he doesn't even try to hunt down Bin Laden. Allowing him to take refuge in Pakistan.

While the Americans say 'Put a bullet in the moslem terrorists'...be sure America that us Australians are hoping it is the Americans who receive the bullet to the Groin and than the head

Thank you
Suzan