Loans | Debt Consolidation | Debt Consolidation | Bad Credit Mortgages | Bad Credit Mortgages
The new war against terrorism [Archive] - ZGeek

PDA

View Full Version : The new war against terrorism


kleph
30-05-2005, 01:59 AM
The Bush administration has launched a high-level internal review of its efforts to battle international terrorism, aimed at moving away from a policy that has stressed efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001, and toward what a senior official called a broader "strategy against violent extremism."

The shift is meant to recognize the transformation of al Qaeda over the past three years into a far more amorphous, diffuse and difficult-to-target organization than the group that struck the United States in 2001. But critics say the policy review comes only after months of delay and lost opportunities while the administration left key counterterrorism jobs unfilled and argued internally over how best to confront the rapid spread of the pro-al Qaeda global Islamic jihad...

In many ways, this is the culmination of a heated debate that has been taking place inside and outside the government about how to target not only the remnants of al Qaeda but also broader support in the Muslim world for radical Islam. Administration officials refused to describe in detail what new policies are under consideration, and several sources familiar with the discussions said some issues remain sticking points, such as how central the ongoing war in Iraq is to the anti-terrorist effort, and how to accommodate State Department desires to normalize a foreign policy that has stressed terrorism to the exclusion of other priorities in recent years...

Much of the discussion has focused on how to deal with the rise of a new generation of terrorists, schooled in Iraq over the past couple years. Top government officials are increasingly turning their attention to anticipate what one called "the bleed out" of hundreds or thousands of Iraq-trained jihadists back to their home countries throughout the Middle East and Western Europe. "It's a new piece of a new equation," a former senior Bush administration official said. "If you don't know who they are in Iraq, how are you going to locate them in Istanbul or London?"

Another key aspect is likely to be the addition of public diplomacy efforts aimed at winning over Arab public sentiment, and State Department official Paul Simons said at a congressional hearing earlier this month that the "internal deliberative process" was broadly conceived to encompass everything from further crackdowns on terrorist financing networks to policies aimed at curbing the teaching of holy war against the West and other "tools with respect to the global war on terrorism."

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/28/AR2005052801171.html)

Mr Bigglesworth
30-05-2005, 06:32 PM
If the US wants to actively fight terrorism, then I can think of a few things it could do:

1 - Stop supporting Israel everytime they break international law
2 - Stop funding Israeli military armament and development, and force Israel to disclose its nuclear arsenal to the rest of the world
3 - Start to engage the moderate and democratic governments of the Middle East
4 - Stop ostracising Iran for its nuclear ambitions, while in the same breath supporting Israels policy of "nuclear ambiguity".
5 - Stop supporting the autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and make them adopt civil and human rights.
5 - Place the armed forces in Iraq under UN control, with a UN mandate and UN command.

Mr. Bungle
30-05-2005, 07:50 PM
This is like a Christmas wish list that you know has no chance of being fulfilled. That being said, your points are all valid.

I would add that the US needs to create a time machine and go back and stop those fuckers who flew planes into buildings. The world would be a lot different today if that hadn't happened. What would Bush be doing now? He had no fucking clue what to do as president before that day.

Mr. Bungle
30-05-2005, 07:56 PM
I think that the US method of dealing with terrorists currently is one that obviously breeds more hatred and violence. However, I think this is the policy they want to prosecute. The way they run the US is via a culture of fear and control, and what better way to perpetuate this than by having an enemy that is invisible, fragmented, and savage. Create more terrorists so you have to continually fight them.

I know this has been said many times before by people a lot smarter than I am. People will follow a strong personality if they are afraid, and Bush - while a weiner - has a strong personality and swagger that people have flocked to. However, I think that some of the population is pulling their collective heads out of the sand and looking around wondering what happened.

If bin Laden had been caught, the "war on terror" would have lost steam. Luckily they can catch him now and still point to Iraq as a reason to continue on with their policies.

Mr Bigglesworth
30-05-2005, 08:10 PM
This is like a Christmas wish list that you know has no chance of being fulfilled. That being said, your points are all valid.

I know its never going to happen. But if one more person can realise that the root cause behind Islamic militantism is due to oppression, then maybe things will change.

Deimos
31-05-2005, 12:55 AM
It smells a bit like an Orwellian war against the enemy, though nobody really knows exactly who the enemy is but if you disagree with the government then you could suddenly find that you are the enemy. But then again I've always been a paranoid conspiracy theorist so I wouldn't pay any attention to me - I could be just using scare tactics on you all...

s3raph
31-05-2005, 02:14 AM
Ah, George Orwell, the intellectual source of choice for quasi-intellectual shitkickers, and of course as subtle as a half brick in a sock.

Nodbugger
31-05-2005, 08:01 AM
don't blame orwell for the half baked idiots that quote him ad-nauseum. the only other thinker i can think of whose work has been more maligned by idiots today who have no real idea what he had to say would have to be nietsche.

Don't forget about Dr. Seuss.

Scythe
31-05-2005, 10:35 PM
don't blame orwell for the half baked idiots that quote him ad-nauseum. the only other thinker i can think of whose work has been more maligned by idiots today who have no real idea what he had to say would have to be nietsche.

I would also say ethicist Peter Singer, but since most people won't know who the heck he is, I won't. So there. :)

I don't think people can be really blamed for not understading Nietzche, i've read most of what he wrote, I own several of his books, and I still have difficulty in understanding half of his thinking. It's the ones who do understand and deliberately misinterpret him to suit their own concepts of the Ubermensch that you should look out for.

Hairyman
31-05-2005, 10:43 PM
Neither Singer nor Nietzche go out of their way to make themselves clear though.

Having said that there is an interesting article on Nietzche here (http://afr.com/premium/articles/2005/05/26/1116950813721.html).

Scythe
31-05-2005, 10:53 PM
Neither Singer nor Nietzche go out of their way to make themselves clear though.

If everyone could understand philosophy, those of us who do grasp bits and pieces wouldn't be the incredibly sexy and charismatic people we are!

Oh wait.....

Bostonmess
31-05-2005, 11:47 PM
Randomly bomb another country, that should clear it up nicely, anyone with more than half a brain can see how much sense that makes.