[thechat] (no subject)was protesters

Jeff C jeffc33 at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 12 20:45:09 CDT 2001

>It's a basic rule of fighting terrorism - it's not a war you can
>win militarily. You just add numbers to the opposing side.

Terrorism can't be defeated militarily.  Miiitary action can make it more 
difficult for terrorist to operate by depriving them of a base of operation.

>Did you see the article I pointed out the other week, from a
>former Soviet soldier who fought in Afghanistan?

Missed it.  I looked in the archives and couldn't find it there either.  
I'll look at it if you'd like to post it again.

>There are no terrorist training camps. There are villages.

And at which village was the al-Quida recruitment video filmed?  The one 
where the guys in the black hoods are kicking down doors and firing 
automatic weapons at human shaped silhouettes with crosses painted on them.  
Where a formation of hooded people are running in formation with automatic 
weapons.  We should probably start with that one.  Along with the villages 
that contain anti-aircraft battaries, ammunition depots, and other weapons 
that could be used by the Taliban.

>Civilian and military are entirely enmeshed. It is not possible
>to cleanly take out enemy soldiers.

Laser guided and GPS guided munitions are a bit "cleaner" than passenger 
aircraft loaded with fuel and people, don't you think.
>If killing civilians is wrong (and surely that's the point
>of all this?) then bombing 'terrorist bases' which are villages
>containing civilians is wrong.

Didn't see many civilians in that recruitment video.

>For every civilian you kill, you create a hundred terrorists
>or more. It's not only wrong, it's not effective.

What is effective is to take away bases of operation from terrorist or would 
be terrorist.  The objective isn't to defeat terrorism militarily, it's to 
let this specific goverment and any government watching that the days of 
allowing terrorist to plan and sustain operations within their borders with 
impunity are over.  State support of terrorism will carry a heavy price.

>As you said, when fighting terrorism you need to
>work out what the terrorist wants, and then do the
>opposite. This bombing allows him to portray himself
>and Islam as the oppressed - one frail old man against
>the superpowers. It lets him gather supporters, both
>in Afghanistan and overseas.

If we took no action, he would gain supporters because he was able to strike 
a blow at the US with impunity.  An increase in individual supporters is a 
given under any scenario.  This coure of action makes it more difficult for 
those supporters to take action by depriving them of safe havens.  How many 
goverments will allow terrorist to operate openly if they see that such 
support may force them out of power?
>This is above all else a battle for hearts and minds.
>Be assured, he's *good* at propaganda. And we're
>reading off his script.

He could spin whatever action we took.  The idea is to make it more 
difficult for terrorist to operate.  After that has been established, we can 
look at putting policies in place that address the root causes.  But, no 
matter what we do, there will always be people unhappy with the US.  The 
idea is to make it difficult for them to try and raise those issues 
terrorist acts.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

More information about the thechat mailing list