Why I Oppose the US War on Terror:an ex-Marine Sergeant Speaks Ou

[Lady_Passion]

I am former military, USAF, 6950th Security Police Squadron Electronic Security Command RAF Chicksands, to be precise. Most of my family and relatives have been or are in the military and I've lived most of my life with or as active duty. I support military 100%, though seldom the reasons they are deployed and how our military is utilized. This article is being posted in response to several conversations regarding the U.S. and war. If there is a more appropriate place, hopefully someone will let me know.

Might also be pertinent to point out to civilians unfamiliar with military processes that the first thing an active duty member of the U.S. military loses are ALL 'rights'. Whatever rights we pretend to have as civilians, military do not have. Cannot be more plain than that. That's why there is the UMCJ (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm) - a separate military law with it's own legal procedures. The UMCJ exists because we train normal people to do extraordinary things most of us would not do. Being human, military personnel often do not recover well from what they are exposed to. The purpose of the UMCJ is to primarily protect active duty military from being incarcerated for what they were trained to do and being unable to separate that training while immersed in civilian living. Should also be said that not all military personnel are trained the same, so this addresses mostly combat indoctrination.


Why I Oppose the US War on Terror:
an ex-Marine Sergeant Speaks Out

by CHRIS WHITE

The more I juxtapose logical world opinion with the Bush administration's actions in the war on terror, I realize one overwhelming theme: hypocrisy. No one in any of the branches of government runs a physical risk to themselves by entering a war with Iraq, and we can bet that none of their family members are at risk, either. That is, until the next "terrorist" attack. I put "terrorist" in quotes because its definition is subjective, and I myself used to be in the Marine Corps, part of the most powerful "terrorist" organization on the planet: the U.S. government. Of course, we never call our operations "terrorism" because every operation is considered legitimate to us. When found guilty by the World Court for violence in Nicaragua, we ignore the decision. Too bad the nations we hurt can't just ignore what we do to them. When the planet condemns us for killing between 2,500-4,000 people in Panama, we're too busy planning the next invasion of a country that can't fight back.

I oppose this war as a U.S. citizen, a veteran, and a doctoral student in history. While my military experience is what first made me skeptical about our government's motives in the developing world, it wasn't until I went to college and began reading hundreds of books and thousands of articles that I was able to truly grasp the profundity of our leadership's contempt for the freedoms they claim to protect. As a rule, we have worked hard to prevent the rise of democracy in the developing world, all the while claiming legitimacy as "the world's police force" because of our so-called "democratic" values. The hypocrisy is astounding. When one investigates our complicity in death squads, torture, massacres, rape, and mass destruction, one realizes that freedom often threatens the current power structure in this country.

I used to consider those incidents as anomalistic in comparison to the "protection" we offered the planet at seemingly no charge. But then I joined the Marines, and I realized why I had believed in the government: they were experts in manipulation. Barely out of high school, the Corps broke us down and built us up in order to shape us into machines, willing to defend the ideals of the power elites in Washington and corporate America. Just look at the companies, which are funding political campaigns, and benefiting from war: weapons producers, technologies, food, clothing, munitions, oil, pharmaceuticals, etc U.S. interventions since WWII have not been done in the name of the world's people (although that is always the claim), but for the preservation of concentrated power. The fact that they have been carried out against the tenets of international law (i.e. the rights of non-intervention and self-determination), in itself deflates their validity. If the U.S. government were held to the FBI's official definition of terrorism ("the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"), their list of victims since WWII alone would include:

Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Granada, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Zaire, Namibia, Lebanon, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Cambodia, Libya, Israel, Palestine, China, Afghanistan, Sudan, Indonesia, East Timor, Turkey, Angola, and Somalia.

In boot camp, deceit and manipulation accompany the necessity to motivate troops to murder on command. You can't take civilians from the street, give them machine guns, and expect them to kill without question in a democratic society; therefore people must be indoctrinated to do so. This fact alone should sound off alarms in our collective American brain. If the cause of war is justified, then why do we have to be put through boot camp? If you answer that we have to be trained in killing skills, well, then why is most of boot camp not focused on combat training? Why are privates shown videos of U.S. military massacres while playing Metallica in the background, thus causing us to scream with the joy of the killer instinct as brown bodies are obliterated? Why do privates answer every command with an enthusiastic, "kill!!" instead of, "yes, sir!!" like it is in the movies? Why do we sing cadences like these?:

"Throw some candy in the school yard, watch the children gather round. Load a belt in your M-60, mow them little bastards down!!" and "We're gonna rape, kill, pillage and burn, gonna rape, kill, pillage and burn!!"

These chants are meant to motivate the troops; they enjoy it, salivate from it, and get off on it. If one repeats these hundreds of times, one eventually begins to accept them as paradigmatically valid.

The demonization of the enemy is crucial to wartime planners, and the above examples of motivation techniques are relevant to the present. Before carrying out a security exercise in Qatar, my unit went through Muslim "indoctrination" classes. The level of racism was unbelievable. Muslims were referred to as "Ahmed," "towlheads," "ragheads," and "terrorists." We were told that most Muslim males were homosexual, and that their hygiene was so primitive that we shouldn't even shake their hands. The object was demonization through feminization and dehumanization, so as to make it easier for us to pull the trigger when ordered to. But Qatar is our ally, so imagine the language being used today in these indoctrination courses about Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraqi population has suffered countless U.S. supported atrocities over the past eleven years. Not only were between 100 and 200 thousand people killed in 1991, but the bombing has continued ever since then, and sanctions have led to the deaths of possibly 1 million people, in a nation of 17 million. Former UNSCOM execs assert that they destroyed 95-98 percent of Saddam's weapons by 1998, and that a nuclear weapons capability is extremely unlikely due to their devastated economy. According to this morning's New York Times, the U.S. reasons that Saddam's gassing of his own people and his hatred of the U.S. are what warrant our harder stance toward Iraq in comparison to North Korea. While we pursue diplomacy with North Korea (which has admitted to having nukes), we prefer to invade Iraq, who we claim is only looking for nukes. Have we forgotten the 1994 Congressional report revealing that we supplied Saddam with biological and chemical weapons during the 1980s? Although U.S. casualties will be lower than that of Iraq, let's not forget the danger we are placing squarely on the shoulders of U.S. troops, who have been indoctrinated as I was. Funny how the people who are least likely to go to war are the ones working the hardest to convince others to fight it for them.

Chris White is an ex-Marine and current doctoral student in history at the University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Discuss?

[TwylaTwobits]

Thing is many Americans oppose this war, but we still support our troops. I remember a patient where I used to work who was a police trainer in Iraq. She had a $300 thousand US dollar bounty on her head, dead or alive, but she was more than willing to go back. She put it bluntly, we have to finish there, we can't pull out. We will have dollar bills turned into IED's on streets of small town USA. I remember replying how do you win a war when they have been fighting for over a thousand years...her answer. You don't.

It's something that I think about a lot, we have Selective Service here, where every US male at the age of eighteen has to register. I have three boys, 2 of them have been born since the war started. I don't see the war finishing anytime before they have to register and that thought fills me with dread.

Something else I've noticed is that the war hardly rates a mention on our nightly news now. It's become something commonplace and now we have a whole new generation growing up with war going on, but does it really hit home for us? Only when it's a soldier in our area that's killed and they have coverage of the burial. It doesn't touch us, even those of us who live near military installations. It's America desensitized and it bothers me. But little we can do at this juncture except give our support to our troops and wish fervently they can come home in one piece.

[FalconAngel]

First, it is UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice for the Civilians that do not know). I am sure that when you wrote "UMCJ" that it must have been a typo.

That was an interesting post, but the original author only covered the subject of demonization of our enemies by the Government and how it works.

Not really effective information on the "war on terrorism". He did not make any mention of how best to fight it to win or anything that is limited to terrorism at all. Everything he presented could be applied to any enemy in any war at all.

Fighting terrorists is a very different war, altogether. It is a very different type of war; one to which our military is rather unaccustomed to fighting.

Our generals and political leaders are still fighting WWII, when it comes to counter-terrorism, turning the nation into and armed concentration camp and sending in massive amounts of troops to fight a standard Vietnam-style war, which we already know cannot be won, instead of taking an effective fight to the enemy.

The problem, which most people do not understand, certainly most Europeans and European descended cultures, is that this is not a war to be fought by sledgehammers. With terrorism, you need surgeons; men who gather intelligence, pass it on to small teams and then surgically remove the cancer cell of terrorists.
And you need not believe me on this; look at how the Israelis handle the issue. For those of us who are old enough to remember the Munich Olympic games, we remember the attack on the Israeli athletes and the response that Israel took.
They didn't send in massive amounts of troops, but rather sent out small, effective hunter-killer teams to return terror to the terrorists. Few people actually know or recall the name of the operation, but we do know that it was most effective. It eliminated attacks against them by Arab terrorists for a couple years.

Fact is that terrorism is a bad thing in modern society. And it does not matter who is doing it. and what the political cause, Religion, separatism, sexuality, or political philosophy: All of them need to be removed efficiently and with little to no fanfare.
But the only way to fight it and win is to terrorize the terrorists.
"Surgically" remove their leaders, the ones who give the orders, at all levels, remove the "soldiers" that actually commit the acts of terrorism and properly educate (not program, real education) the children so that the recruit population is reduced for the future, since the vast majority of terrorist "soldiers" are uneducated or severely undereducated.

Currently, the most effective of the free world's counter terrorism units are the SAS/SBS (Great Britain), Moussad (spelling?)(Israel), Sptznaz (Russia) and GSG-9 (Germany) in no particular order. And until all of the free world pony's up with the same philosophies of surgical operations to handle terrorism, all that will happen is that the terrorists will continue to grow bolder and become stronger.

The methods in place, currently, only serve to make it harder for the population at large, easier for the terrorists and to help them gain recruits.

[FalconAngel]

On the war in Iraq.

It was, and is, an illegal war instituted without an order by Congress, which is required to declare war on other nations, enacted by an "expansionist empire" President who should never have been elected to the Presidency.

The war in Iraq is not, and never has been, about WMD's, or terrorism. The war in Iraq has been a major recruiting tool for terrorists, and a very effective tool, as a matter of fact.

The war in Iraq is about expanding the power of corrupt leadership into a nation that was in bad shape because of our political involvement. Remember that it was the CIA that helped Saddam Hussein in power in the first place.

[Long Duck Dong]

Currently, the most effective of the free world's counter terrorism units are the SAS/SBS (Great Britain), Moussad (spelling?)(Israel), Sptznaz (Russia) and GSG-9 (Germany) in no particular order. And until all of the free world pony's up with the same philosophies of surgical operations to handle terrorism, all that will happen is that the terrorists will continue to grow bolder and become stronger.


SAS/SBS ( great britain and new zealand, we have sas troops in iraq and afghanistan )... willie apiata won the VC recently for extreme courage under fire, and is SAS

[darkeyes]

ahhhh Falcie me darlin'.. how 2 make friends an influence people.. slaughter as many asya can a those ya don like an THINK mite b "terrorists".

War is war.. its all evil an its all nasty.. an its all bout winnin or retainin power.. not for u an I a course.. we (well soz.. u;)) r the fodder.. wile ther is no justification wotsoeva that stands ne moral scrutiny for wot is called terrorism..neitha is ther ne for wot they refer 2 as conventional or ne otha kinda war..

... an unlike sum.. I refuse 2 support ne military for ne purpose wich involves warfare..me own county's or ne 1 elses.. savin peeps from Earthquakes an volcanoes me can liv wiv.. but they don havta b military peeps to do that.. ther4 wy hav a military?? But these r old ansas 2 old questions.. but still relevant now as they wer wen 1st they wer thought out.. peeps do things for ther own reasons an in the main I can accept that... thats wot they wonna do an go an start killin peeps for pay or for cause or both.. thats ther affair.. jus don expect me 2 support 'em for doin it.. mite b able 2 respect a well thought out conviction... but will nev b able 2 bring mesel 2 support that conviction or ne action resultin from it wich involves death an destruction.. anya wudn expect me 2 say owt else now wudya?:rolleyes:

[TwylaTwobits]

The actions of Israel at Munich succesful?? Maybe we aren't reading the same history. From what I know they killed the hostages and did exactly what they set out to do....terrorize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

The raid on Entebbe, the same thing, still many people died and the result was the same...terror was spread.

That is the point of terrorism, to disrupt a society through any means necessary. There is no succesful way to battle terrorism until every man, woman and child on the face of this Earth has the ability to feel fear removed from them and that just isn't going to happen.

Yes we have counterterrorism groups around the world, yet all they can do is minimize the damage, they can never remove the terror. And that is why you cannot defeat terrorists.

[FalconAngel]

It wasn't just Munich, there was also Entebbe. I'm old enough to remember both.

I was going to mention Entebbe, but I got sidetracked a bit.:tong:

But Entebbe was a reaction to a hijacking rather than a "solution-type" response to terrorism in general.
And while the operation after Munich was a response to the attack, it had the additional effect of teaching everyone that the terrorists can be defeated by giving them the same treatment (but, focused on them) that they give out to the general population.

But, Entebbe was a very well planned operation with few friendly casualties.

Of course, the Israelis know terrorism very well, having used it to sufficient effect when booting the British out after Israel was established at the end of WWII.

[Lady_Passion]

First, it is UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice for the Civilians that do not know). I am sure that when you wrote "UMCJ" that it must have been a typo.
Yup, a typo. Unfortunately I'm unable to edit to correct it. No edit option appears. That, or I'm having a particularly bad day with the obvious :.)


That was an interesting post, but the original author only covered the subject of demonization of our enemies by the Government and how it works.
That was Chris White's intention. He's written numerous similar articles, along with Stan Goff, David Hackworth (RIP) and others.


Not really effective information on the "war on terrorism". He did not make any mention of how best to fight it to win or anything that is limited to terrorism at all. Everything he presented could be applied to any enemy in any war at all.
The universal aspect is the point. He was somewhat sarcastic as well, pointing out our government is less interested in terrorism except to further it's agenda.


Fighting terrorists is a very different war, altogether. It is a very different type of war; one to which our military is rather unaccustomed to fighting.

Our generals and political leaders are still fighting WWII, when it comes to counter-terrorism, turning the nation into and armed concentration camp and sending in massive amounts of troops to fight a standard Vietnam-style war, which we already know cannot be won, instead of taking an effective fight to the enemy.

The problem, which most people do not understand, certainly most Europeans and European descended cultures, is that this is not a war to be fought by sledgehammers. With terrorism, you need surgeons; men who gather intelligence, pass it on to small teams and then surgically remove the cancer cell of terrorists.
And you need not believe me on this; look at how the Israelis handle the issue. For those of us who are old enough to remember the Munich Olympic games, we remember the attack on the Israeli athletes and the response that Israel took.
They didn't send in massive amounts of troops, but rather sent out small, effective hunter-killer teams to return terror to the terrorists. Few people actually know or recall the name of the operation, but we do know that it was most effective. It eliminated attacks against them by Arab terrorists for a couple years.

Fact is that terrorism is a bad thing in modern society. And it does not matter who is doing it. and what the political cause, Religion, separatism, sexuality, or political philosophy: All of them need to be removed efficiently and with little to no fanfare.
But the only way to fight it and win is to terrorize the terrorists.
"Surgically" remove their leaders, the ones who give the orders, at all levels, remove the "soldiers" that actually commit the acts of terrorism and properly educate (not program, real education) the children so that the recruit population is reduced for the future, since the vast majority of terrorist "soldiers" are uneducated or severely undereducated.

Currently, the most effective of the free world's counter terrorism units are the SAS/SBS (Great Britain), Moussad (spelling?)(Israel), Sptznaz (Russia) and GSG-9 (Germany) in no particular order. And until all of the free world pony's up with the same philosophies of surgical operations to handle terrorism, all that will happen is that the terrorists will continue to grow bolder and become stronger.

The methods in place, currently, only serve to make it harder for the population at large, easier for the terrorists and to help them gain recruits.

The Art Of War works for me. And much of the Napoleonic Code. Both full of time tested, proven strategies which military leaders are required to study but more typically are restricted from applying. That goes back to how a government chooses to utilize military resources.

[FalconAngel]

Yup, a typo. Unfortunately I'm unable to edit to correct it. No edit option appears. That, or I'm having a particularly bad day with the obvious :.)

Well there is also the fact that your typo would show up as a mistake exactly like the correct spelling would, since the spell-checker does not recognize any acronyms.:):tong:



That was Chris White's intention. He's written numerous similar articles, along with Stan Goff, David Hackworth (RIP) and others.

That I didn't know, but then again, outside of the military Aviation forums, I haven't been on any of forums regarding politico-military sites in a couple of years.


The universal aspect is the point. He was somewhat sarcastic as well, pointing out our government is less interested in terrorism except to further it's agenda.

But that too is part of the problem as well. The focus of that particular aspect demonizes a particular terrorist group instead of all terrorism, which is, in part, how domestic terrorism has cropped up again.


The Art Of War works for me. And much of the Napoleonic Code. Both full of time tested, proven strategies which military leaders are required to study but more typically are restricted from applying. That goes back to how a government chooses to utilize military resources.[/QUOTE]

I like "The Art of War. Tsun Tsu was a brilliant military soldier and is required reading at West Point. The Napoleonic code, I am not as familiar with, but then I have always preferred the principles of General George Samuel Patton. Highly innovative leader and brilliant tactician.

But one thing is certain......the government usually does not know how to properly utilize it's military resources and assets.

[FalconAngel]

The actions of Israel at Munich succesful?? Maybe we aren't reading the same history. From what I know they killed the hostages and did exactly what they set out to do....terrorize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

The raid on Entebbe, the same thing, still many people died and the result was the same...terror was spread.

That is the point of terrorism, to disrupt a society through any means necessary. There is no succesful way to battle terrorism until every man, woman and child on the face of this Earth has the ability to feel fear removed from them and that just isn't going to happen.

Yes we have counterterrorism groups around the world, yet all they can do is minimize the damage, they can never remove the terror. And that is why you cannot defeat terrorists.

No. you are reading a different part of history; and wikipedia is notorious for glaring inaccuracies, so I do not use it, unless I have no other choice, and then I take it with a bag of salt.
Try these links instead of wikipedia for info on the attack:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/olympics-massacre-munich--the-real-story-524011.html

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-munich-massacre.html

http://www.sptimes.com/News/122999/Sports/Terrorists_turn__72_M.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/terrorism/terrorism_munich.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8683020606157422251#

I was talking about the post-Munich operation where they sent out teams to hunt down and terminate, with very extreme prejudice, the terrorists responsible. It was very effective at cutting down on terror attacks, not just in Israel, but world wide.

Terrorists were, virtually paralized with fear. And it would have continued, had they not accidentally killed that one Italian waiter that they mistook for one of the terrorists on their list.

[darkeyes]

I was talking about the post-Munich operation where they sent out teams to hunt down and terminate, with very extreme prejudice, the terrorists responsible. It was very effective at cutting down on terror attacks, not just in Israel, but world wide.

Terrorists were, virtually paralized with fear. And it would have continued, had they not accidentally killed that one Italian waiter that they mistook for one of the terrorists on their list.

I see it had beneficial long term effects Falcie, and helped stabilise the middle east...the world for that matter... the situation we live in now vis a vis international "terror" goes back in a straight line to the aftermath of Munich, Munich itself, right back to the 6 day war, the Suez crisis and the creation of the state of Israel itself and beyond to broken promises made by the British during WW1 and beyond even that right back through the crusades to the destruction of the old Jewish state by Rome.... and with every step there have been opportunities to change things and each and every time they have been missed...

[TwylaTwobits]

Thanks Fran, and Falcon, yes Wiki has it's issues but that article jibed with memories and what I'd been taught and read about the Munich Massacre. Doesn't negate my point that terrorism can't be fought. It can only be countered with terrorism itself. We terrorize the terrorists, how long til we look in the mirror and call ourselves terrorists?

And let me be plain, this is coming from someone in a long line of warriors and vets. I have grandparents (WW2), father and ex father in law (Vietnam), brother in law (Persian Gulf War) and I live close to Ft. Knox where we still have men and women over in the Middle East. If war came to my country I would take up a gun and I would fight, but only to defend myself and my own. I support our troops but I do not support this war or any other.

[bigbadmax]

might I suggest you look up Wooton Basset?

Civillians,Ex millitary and Serving Millitary ALWAYS line streets for dead being repatriated from the Ghan and Iraq.

We honour the fallen and we also respect our serving members of Armed forces AND Veterans...no matter what flag they serve/d under.

[Lady_Passion]

On the war in Iraq.

It was, and is, an illegal war instituted without an order by Congress, which is required to declare war on other nations, enacted by an "expansionist empire" President who should never have been elected to the Presidency.

The war in Iraq is not, and never has been, about WMD's, or terrorism. The war in Iraq has been a major recruiting tool for terrorists, and a very effective tool, as a matter of fact.

The war in Iraq is about expanding the power of corrupt leadership into a nation that was in bad shape because of our political involvement. Remember that it was the CIA that helped Saddam Hussein in power in the first place.
Exactly.

Furthermore, 'divide and conquer' is a common strategy where one country creates a mess for another, then steps back allowing chaos to ensue. Can't fight back effectively when they're infighting.

[FalconAngel]

I see it had beneficial long term effects Falcie, and helped stabilise the middle east...the world for that matter... the situation we live in now vis a vis international "terror" goes back in a straight line to the aftermath of Munich, Munich itself, right back to the 6 day war, the Suez crisis and the creation of the state of Israel itself and beyond to broken promises made by the British during WW1 and beyond even that right back through the crusades to the destruction of the old Jewish state by Rome.... and with every step there have been opportunities to change things and each and every time they have been missed...

True to a degree, but the Munich event was just one in a long line of religion based Middle Eastern violence, as you mentioned, which goes so far back that most folks, even historians, have forgotten.

most folks do not even know that it all started when the Pope sent Christian troops into the Middle East, starting the 1st Crusade; a war of nothing but Christian conquest for power and land for the Church.

Had that not happened and not been followed up with more violence by the Christian armies in the following 2 Crusades, then we would probably not have this issue.
Some religions have very, very long memories and Islam is one of them. Others edit out their own crimes and subsequently forget them altogether, of which Christianity is most prominent of them.

If the west had sent peace emissaries instead of armies, things may have been quite different. They would, very likely stuck to their own regional secular Islamic violence and perhaps not struck out at the west at all. Maybe.

[FalconAngel]

Thanks Fran, and Falcon, yes Wiki has it's issues but that article jibed with memories and what I'd been taught and read about the Munich Massacre. Doesn't negate my point that terrorism can't be fought. It can only be countered with terrorism itself. We terrorize the terrorists, how long til we look in the mirror and call ourselves terrorists?

And let me be plain, this is coming from someone in a long line of warriors and vets. I have grandparents (WW2), father and ex father in law (Vietnam), brother in law (Persian Gulf War) and I live close to Ft. Knox where we still have men and women over in the Middle East. If war came to my country I would take up a gun and I would fight, but only to defend myself and my own. I support our troops but I do not support this war or any other.

Glad to help , Twyla.

I also come from a long line of warriors, going back to my paternal grandmother's family line (mallory). Look up Samuel Mallory, NY levies during the Revolutionary war, spy for Gen. Washington, has a footnote in my nieces' history books.:)
And I took Basic at Ft. Knox; D-18-4. If you watch the movie Stripes, you will see my actual barracks building in the background of the Graduation scene (it is directly behind the steel warehouse building behind and to audience left of the troops, just a 4 minute walk from the reception station). On a nostalgic note, those WWII era barracks are all gone, at least according to Google Earth.

But the point is not that terrorism cannot be fought and won.....it can be fought and won.

But not with the bulldozer of conventional troops or the same types of strategies that won in past conventional wars.
Terrorists are not conventional combatants, they are very unconventional and the only way to fight them is to use a type of warfare that uses surgical precision.
A scalpel rather than a bulldozer.
Current conventional methods, combined with a lukewarm (at best) political effort to help (socially, educationally, economically) the nations from which terrorists have been most successful recruiting, have only made any effective efforts to combat terrorism almost completely worthless.

A complete overhaul of our current strategy is desperately in order, if we are serious about winning the war on terrorism.

[FalconAngel]

might I suggest you look up Wooton Basset?

Civillians,Ex millitary and Serving Millitary ALWAYS line streets for dead being repatriated from the Ghan and Iraq.

We honour the fallen and we also respect our serving members of Armed forces AND Veterans...no matter what flag they serve/d under.

Very true. I can honor and respect an enemy equally to an ally, as long as that enemy fought and served with honor and respect for the rules of civilized warfare (as civilized as war can actually be).

[Long Duck Dong]

you can never win the war on terror, cos so many people rely on the dictionary defination of terrorist and terrorism and think that makes them educated on tactics and targets...... and the truth is far from that.....

for a start, the only use for a scalpel is in a op to perform a lobotomy.... cos the aspects of terrorism actions and words start in the brain....
even surgical strikes against targets or military blanket action has never worked fully...... only a grunt would think that, and they would be the type that uses google to work out how to lace their boots

before I am told I am wrong.... I have spent a lifetime being drilled over military strategy, ops and tactics, I have served in the nz forces in a front line, strategic role.... and I have put them into practise a number of times.... including the way I write posts in the forum using key phrases in a form that is done to show up behavioral patterns in people.....
so my knowledge of human behievour and indoctrined thinking is far from lacking......

you are not dealing with your every day, common house hold target, they do not hold to the articles of war, nor to they respect the geneva convention guidelines.... they are simple and ordinary people, with the knowledge and ability to raise hell..... even the vc showed the us, how a under equipted people could hand out one hell of a hiding.....

unfortunately the same mentality exists in a large number of people, the same ability to allow a point of view to become all comsuming, to the point that they believe their views are the only possible way and purse them agressively, to the point that they make targets out of people that are innocent, the same aspect exists in forum trolls and people that are consistently trying to tell the world of their own self importance....

a war against thinking and beliefs can never be won... and that is the basis of terrorism and terrorist acts, but its always easier to see them in other countries, races, nationalities and people.... cos their views do not match ours.... but the trouble is that people can walk amongst us, work with us, talk with us, eat with us.... and be against us..... and we would never know unless they revealed themselves..... they are commonly referred to as sleepers

now I never use the google search tool to look up the dictionary meaning of terrorist or terrorism cos simply, nor do the foe.... as they do not give a rats ass about dictionary meanings or if they fit the cricteria..... all that matters to them is their beliefs and refusing to let others have control..... and they will do that any way they can.....

so can you win the war on terror.... no.... not without removing any reason for any person to react in a extreme or subtle manner to undermine the infringements on their beliefs or ways of life..... and that is simply not possible.... that fact was proven with hitler.. his death never stopped the neo nazi's... and the white supremacists groups, it merely created splinter cells that we are still dealing with over 50 years later..... but the splinter cells are not isolated in germany any more, they exist all around the world.... its just not all of them are visible or walking under the same banner....
and there is no way to surgically remove them..... when a lot of policies and laws actually protect them and support their beliefs... and actions against them only prove their beliefs to be right in their eyes

[darkeyes]

Some religions have very, very long memories and Islam is one of them. Others edit out their own crimes and subsequently forget them altogether, of which Christianity is most prominent of them.

If the west had sent peace emissaries instead of armies, things may have been quite different. They would, very likely stuck to their own regional secular Islamic violence and perhaps not struck out at the west at all. Maybe.

Religions have no memory.. people have memory Falcie.. and you're right.. people do edit what they want to from what was.. and western states are very good at it..

Your not beginning to get the pacifist message are you Falcie? Peace emissaries?? Naaaa 2 much 2 hope for... tee hee:tong:

[TwylaTwobits]

Falcon, you just don't get it....... even the people fighting the war on terrorism know you can't win a war against terrorism. They are there for their country, they are there to do the best they can to provide freedom for everyone, but they know it's all for a lost cause. There is absolutely no way to combat terrorism without becoming terrorists. Your description of a surgical strike reminds me of the planes hitting the tower. Effective, isn't it?