Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

Only one side used guerilla tactics in the vietnam war: the vietnamese. Guerilla tactics would be pointless and impractical for the U.S. to impliment, for several reasons, including not knowing who the enemy is, and not being able to blend in with the civilian population.

Speaking of today, your suggestion of sending our own terrorists to middle eastern countires is both immoral, impractical, and counterproductive. CIA agents that can disguise themselves as jordinians, saudia arabians, syrians, etc, are NOT easy to come by. They will have to know the culture, language, local dialects, accents, etc. And they will have to look like an ordinary civilian, without attracting attention to themselves.

Next, american terrorists killing civilians in the middle east will only serve to inflame the population against us. right now the terrorists we are fighting are a radical minority, let us not change that. Any acts on our part that could be percieved as radical or tyrannous only serves to help the enemy, by giving them fresh anger with which to recruit new members.

The terrorism Problem may look bad, but it really isn 't anywhere close to as bad as it could be. Considering how easy it is to gain access to the U.S., And how difficult it is to prevent terrorists attacks, things could certainly get a lot worse. So, it would be advisable not to (*)(*)(*)(*) a lot of people off.

An less outrageous strategy would be convincing Arab governments that it is in their intrest to crack down hard on local terrorists. In fact, It is in their interest, we just need to let that be known to them. Their police officers are both local, respected, know the area, and would be far, far more effective at anti-terrorism measures than anything the americans could do without their support. Saudia Arabia has already made progress in rooting out terrorism in its country.

However, We arn't going to be able to convince them to cooperate with the United States if we continue to inflame tensions throughout the middle east. Their people will begin to hate us, and they will have to respect that, or face turmoil in their own country. Thus, it would be well advised for us to keep that proverbial hand behind our back, because we need THEIR help more than we need our other hand.

Another thing, if we kill civilians too, who is to say that we are better than them? Because they started it? That argument becomes exceedingly stale, if you look at history of the region.

As the israeli's should by now know well, violence begots violence, We arn't going to make them less radical by becoming terrorists ourselves, we will only serve to make them stronger in the end.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

The United States did not go in simply because of WMD's. We fought that war because we believed Iraq posed a threat to our country (a part of which was the WMD's). If the last few years have taught us anything, we would realize that Saddam did pose that threat. There are well documented accounts of Iraqi officials meeting with Osama Bin Laden, and after Berg's death it is clear that there is an al-Qaeda presence in Iraq.

In order to fight terror, we must combat it on all fronts. We are fighting it in Afghanistan, and we are fighting pure evil in Iraq. Saddam openly supported terror against Israel, and openly pursued WMD's. He was a terrorist dictator who needed to be deposed.

You're right. The oil and the opportunity to enrich corporate sponsors was the real reason.

Um...no.

I never heard of "well documented ... meetings" between Hussein and Bin Laden, but even if they did meet, remember that Rumsfeld had official meetings with Hussein also. What is your point? And, of course al-Queda is in Iraq NOW. The point is that Hussein was a securalist and a relationship with Bin Laden is HIGHLY unlikely.

You people really need to stop trying to justify the Iraqi invasion. It was never necessary and many innocent people and many soldiers died while corporate sponsors of the Bush Admin gained most of the benefits.

How much do you want to bet we will never be fighting terror in its home: i.e. Saudi Arabia?

If we went in because of the oil then why are gas prices at $2.50 a gallon? Why haven't we taken any of that oil?

One thing that David Kay said when he left Iraq (after announcing your beloved "there are no WMD's") was that it posed a more serious threat than previously thought. He also said he believed Saddam DID have WMD's but funneled them to Syria before the war. And, what a coincidence, Syrian WMD's were discovered in Jordan! (even though Syria has no weapons programs.) And what a coincidence! After we invade Iraq Mommar Khadafi decides to end his weapons programs! And Iran agrees to be tougher on terrorism!

Here are a few links between Iraq and terrorism:

The May 15 Organization had headquarters in Baghdad (which bombed a hotel, offices, embassies, and a plane flight)

Abu Nidal Organization has strong ties to Iraq

The Hawari Group (bombed TWA flight over Greece) had its leader killed in Iraq.

The PLF's leader Abu Abbas is believed to have lived in Baghdad

Saddam offered $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers

Saddam Hussein ATTEMPTED THE ASSASSINATION OF A FORMER US PRESIDENT

Saddam gassed the Kurds

An Iraqi, Faruk Hejazi, met with Osama and then was appointed as Iraq's ambassador to Turkey

An Iraqi defector, General Abu Zeinab al-Qurairy, reported close ties between Saddam and Osama and described an Iraqi training center where "potential hijackers were taught to seize planes using small knives." This center was known as Salman Pak.



Do not pretend Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. We are fighting a war on terror, so it is logical to invade a terrorist nation.

Maverick, you are seem to be a very well-informed & well-educated person. Too bad all of the ties between Saddam & Bin-Laden, terrorist activities & Iraq, WMD & Saddam...your facts will fall on deaf ear & blind eyes. People here want to believe only one thing. Bush is evil, America is bad, the war was wrong & Iraq is innocent.

Anything else will be argued to the death by people who don't want to see the truth. That someone had to go in a put an end to Saddam & that there was, is, & will continue to be until WE stop it...a terrorist threat from Iraq.

__________________
Be Alert: The world needs more Lerts

Why can people understand!? The US occupation is the reason there are so many terrorists! Before the US attacked, Saddam had control over his country - he didn't have terror camps or any significant amount of terrorists living throughout his country - there was no need. Now the US invades, and Iraq has become a new breeding ground for terror cells and Islamic fighters.

We started the terrorist threat in Iraq, not Saddam.

Darken

__________________
Walk down the right back alley in Sin City and you can find anything...

Show your kids you love them by buying them the No. 7 brand.

Terrorism achieves it's goals. To be heard. Terrorism occurs because no-one is listening to the terrorists but after a terrorist attack people take notice, besides not all terrorism is bad. If someone blew up Hitler it would of been terrorism.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

You do realize those facts I cited occurred before our invasion, right? I got them from a book written before the Iraq war.

I was actually responding to Raven's comment...

Darken

__________________
Walk down the right back alley in Sin City and you can find anything...

Show your kids you love them by buying them the No. 7 brand.