The Bandit said:
Bon_Clay said:
The Bandit said:
Player Two said:
One wonders if it'll actually make a clod of difference. Yes, he is (was?) their leader; Do you think that his dying will really stop terrorism? Do you think conflict in the Middle East is just going to vanish overnight?
No, not really. This is a boost to morale and perhaps a minor disruption of their operations - I have no doubt that they have a line-up of second-in-commands who are just waiting to take his place. Then... what? We spend another decade trying to destroy his replacement?
You're right. We should just not try and ignore every terrorist attack.
You people confuse the hell out of me.
Nice straw man argument, as they clearly suggested that. Terrorism can't be fought like a normal war, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. Starting wars against full countries when its only select individuals from multiple different places (which were places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE mostly, not Afghanistan or Iraq).
And searching for their leader clearly isn't the greatest use of resources as it took almost 10 years and is would be foolish to think this will end everything. Counter-terrorism has to be done a lot differently than when dealing with criminals within communities, or wars between countries.
Then please explain the proper way to carry out this war, General.
Ho ho, so just because I recognize some of the problems with the war on terror, which plenty of people have pointed out on many occasions, means I must be a military and homeland security mastermind? I don't have all the answers, I wouldn't put myself in charge of fighting terrorism if I was given the chance.
But sure I could give some suggestion. First change the terrible foreign policy that initially pissed these people off. Obviously you can't put all the blame on the US, no matter how much you antagonize someone it is still their decision to murder people over it. But the US had already killed people in the middle east, and wouldn't remove their military presence when they had no reason or right to be in there (this is all pre-9/11). They had trade embargoes on Iraq, troops in Saudi Arabia, and their support of Israel has always been a controversial subject.
As for how to fight them, invading full countries and overthrowing dictators is completely unrelated. Work with governments with reasonable amounts of troops, do things precisely not with brute force. And with all the outside organizations and Blackwater troops brought in, why not take it a step further and just open it up to bounty hunters. Same way they fought piracy(real pirates, on boats), the greatest navy in the world couldn't stop it. But allowing people to hunt them down themselves for profit actually did help.