Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve-O
What terrorists don't seem to understand is that attacks like this, indiscriminate attacks on foreign soil, brings people together. These same attacks go on daily in Iraq but people say "we shouldn't be there" therefor the attacks are succesful at hurting morale. Attacks like these in London will only further the resolve of the British to destroy the terrorists.
Let sleeping dogs lay. the terrorists don't seem to understand this at all. You don't attack people in their home that is when they are willing to die to defend themselves. If this same attack was carried out in say Iraq or Egypt people would say "well they knew the risk of going there" but by doing it in London you have made them feel unsafe at home and know they must do what they can to get that feeling of safety back.
As a final thought on this anyone who kills strangers is a COWARD in the truest sense of the word.
|
Steve-O. I hate to disagree with the newest Mod on the forums, however I'm going to (congrats btw). If I get banned, then I get banned
.
I think terrorists are aware of the danger of bringing people together, however the payoff of making civilians in other countries feel unsafe in their own home towns is probably worth the danger of this. When people feel unsafe, they lose faith in their govt. to keep them safe and that's what the terrorists are trying to accomplish. This also gives fuel to the parts of those govts. that feel these goverments shouldn't be involved in these conflicts, and they can state (whether it's true or not) that if they weren't involved, these attacks would have not happened. If your country does get involved (we'll use Iraq as an example, but I'm speaking more generally) against the country that supposedly supported the terrorists, you run risk of upsetting the locals in that country and being forced to pull out by public opinion. That is probably their main goal here. Swaying public opinion either in london or Iraq.
The problem that national govts face when dealing with terrorists is how to treat them. If you treat them like common criminals (which they are not) then your police forces are unable to deal with the threat. If you treat them like a military threat, then you almost have to throw some civil liberties (those of the terrorists) out the window and run the risk of losing the respect of you're own liberal citizens and that of the rest of the world. There is a tight-rope here that needs to be walked that I don't think most people understand.
I'm giving you a lot of respect when I assume that by killing strangers, you mean killing civilians and not another member of an opposing armed force.
Unfortunately, I do feel most of the blame for these types of attacks falls on USA, however not in the context most would believe. The US successfully used terrorist type attacks and gorrilla tactics against the british to win their independance, however I think most people learned the wrong lessons from how successful these attacks were and why. It is because of these lessons they THINK they learned that this style of "warfare" (and I use that term very loosely) seems so appropriate today. What the terrorists fail to take into concideration is that circumstances back then are no where near what they are today.
I will not go into my personal feelings about the conflict in Iraq, but I will state that from a military objective stand-point the terrorist attacks on foreign soil is both stupid and unorganized. The biggest problem we have right now is that most of the terrorists have no training on stratagy and tactics. If the allied forces were facing a well trained, well informed, well educated army, it would be far easier to kick them into next week via the scenic route. Unfortunately we're facing just the opposite, therefore it's far more difficult to understand what their objectives and motives are. Until you can know your opponents objectives, it's far too difficult to come up with a way to deny them that objective. Until they learn that their objective is unreachable, they will continue.
Trons