Is The War On Terrorism . . .
 

a winnable war?

Definition of a winnable war in the War on Terrorism: the total elimination of terrorism as a method.

I don't think so.

Terrorism has been around practically forever, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.

Would this "war" should really be called the war on al-qaeda instead?

I don't think it's a completely "winnable" war. I think it's possible to reduce it some, but not completely conquer it, not until everyone thinks and feels exactly the same. GC is a testimony to the likliehood of that ever happening. :rolleyes: :D

Winnable? no, not really. Bin-Laden and most of his Al-Quida Buddies has yet to be captured.

I'm not 100% sure how you define "most" - but many reports list nearly all of the top brass from al Qaeda as being captured or killed. Obviously bin Laden is still at large, but it seems like inroads have been made to 'cut the head' of the hydra . . .

. . . however this doesn't really help immensely, as most terror organizations rely on the self-sufficient, independently-operating 'cell' concept to function.

Is the war 'winnable' in the sense of eliminating terrorism? No, in much the same way as the war on meteorology can never be 'won' in the sense of accurately predicting the weather for every day. Note that this is a truly terrible metaphor, but i'm going somewhere, i promise.

Anyway - the 'war on terror' should more accurately be measured in the likelihood and severity of future attacks. Please note that while the Iraq situation is a part of this war, it is not for direct reasons - I'll contend (and Russ can prop this up better) that the Iraq war is a push to stabilize the region and dislodge the environments that support terrorist groups.

Thus, the ultimate test of the war on terror, as it goes in Iraq, will be measured in any stabilization that occurs in the region over the longterm.

Not Al-Qaeda (they're not the only organization that offers that kind of threat,) but it could be called the War on Jihadism or something like that. The problem with using an intellectually honest term like that is that it becomes counterproductive.

The idea of the ar on Terror is not simply to defeat Al Qaeda. That's been done. They are no longer effective. The threat is still there, however. The ideology is still there. Most importantly, the nations where this ideology thrives are economically depressed AND economically disconected from the rest of the world. The governments of these nations deflect criticism with state controlled media, and this just feeds anti-American sentiment and extreme interpretations of Islam.

If you look at the big picture, the best thing to do to win this war is what the US is currently doing; replace the most vocally anti-American, and the only genocidal regime in the Middle East with a legitimate democracy. Change Iraq, and you change the region. Change the region, and you defeat Jihadism.

hell- we had a terrorist attack in Iowa earlier this month and we have yet to see the US bomb the fuck out of ALF like they did Al-Qaeda. I guess it's only if you're operating from another country or non-white that our government wants to kill you.

Actually, let's educate you Mr. Ignorant who makes anti-black, anti-protestant, anti-catholic, anti-semitic, anti-american, and anti-israel remarks and advocates the mass murder of americans.

Arabs are middle-eastern and are classified as white.

So while you're busy being David Duke, at least learn to classify people.

-Rudey

last I checked our American military called the 30,000 plus people they have killed in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq "brown".

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abuse1.jpg
See the color difference between the American bitch and the tortured Iraqi?

You forget I come from a state that has DWB (Driving While Brown). Hispanic immigrants and Hispanic-Americans are classified as white but are disprortionately pulled over and having vehicle searches because their skin color is different.

Or maybe the government doesn't care when all of the victims are white. Or it has nothing to do with race.

Is this terrorist group, of which you write, procatively trying to get a nuclear device so that they can detonate it on American soil? I didn't think so. There is no equivelancy. None.

Let me reiterate this for your since your ignorance is beyond the measure of mankind. Being white is a population classification and Arabs fall under it.

Your ignorance is outstanding though. By your stupid logic, someone with a tan is all of a sudden a different race and ethnicity.

Of course we don't expect much from you after your calls for mass murder and bigoted words.

-Rudey

Are you a f-ing retard? Don't pull anecdotal evidence about Iowa into this conversation . . . I know you hate your state, and I know you hate your nation, but I hate your non sequitur defenses, and I abhor your persistent strawmanning - let's call it even. You can start over with a rational discussion -or- you can quit while you're only a bit behind, jackmove.

And how in the fuck do you know the ALF isn't being sought out? You retard, internal acts of terrorism are handled by the FBI (and Iowa's DCI is in on it too), and there's far less publicity involved. Or did you not do the research? Nope, you just ran your face . . . everything's a tin-foil act of hypocrisy. Your efforts would be better spent dealing with ACTUAL issues, instead of ones you've made up inside your head (or better yet, read on some silly-ass weblog).

Kid, you're an idiot.

I just think it's only fair if we bomb one group of terrorists we should bomb them all. I like explosions. Plus I think France was in on it.

You need to move to France ASAP.

-Rudey