Quote:
Originally Posted by goldorak
I agree completely on this point.
Now answering to Skybird yes terrorists are not simple criminals (in the sense that the former have a political agenda and the acts they perpetrate are but a means to an end not the end in itself whereas the later don't have any kind of political end game in mind), but you cannot as the US has done put on the same level terrorists and a hypothetical "terrorist nation". The means to attack and protect from an agressive nation are completely different than those used to protect our societies from terrorism.
The scale is so different that you cannot do it unless you change the rules of the game and by this fact undermine the foundations of our democratic societies.
I'll take as an example the UK and Italy. 2 countries which have had to contend with terrorism for many years. In the UK the IRA because of the situation in Northern Irleland and in Italy during the 70's because of left wing extremists. In each case there were bombings, tens, hundreds of victims over the years. Legislation was passed that enabled the police to hunt down those extremists and yet we didn't lose our democracy. We didn't become countries of citizens obssesed with terrorism fear or countries in which we advocated the application of torture. In this sense dealing with terrorism is more an extension of police duties then that of an army going to war.
And even so, the resolution of these crisis is always political and never military. That is why the US is going to lose the war on terrorism, they don't understand the nature of this fenomenon and try to use the only method they know, the might of the military industrial complex. Why why don't they learn from countries that have had experience in such matters ?
|
Because the terrorism as seen on 9/11 does not compare to that we have seen in germany and italy, or still see in the Bask province. That was my point, goldorak: that djihad adds a new qualitative and quantitative dimension to the game.
On the terror examples you gave, I completely agree with you. Where we disagree is that you do not differ between past examples of terrorism in europe (RAF, ETA etc), and today's djihad and Al Quaeda, while I do. Where then we agree in our disagreeing again is that even djihad for the most (not completely) gets best tackled not by war operations, but solid police work, intelligence infiltration, counter terrorism operations. that can - and miust - include hitech options, but these should not be understood to be capable to replace HUMINT capabilities.