I know you are an idiot, but this is too easy.


Quote Originally Posted by Total_Blender View Post
I disagree, theres a point at which Homeland Security becomes a worse problem than terrorism (and this point, specifically, is called the USA Patriot Act).
Patriot act is a joke and can , read will, lead to massive internal spying. As written now though, its not an issue anyone but those that do business with suspected terroists need to worry about.

Also, the torture events at Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo, which completely undermined America's commitment to the Geneva convention.
Name a single "torture event" that happened at either place that falls under the protections of the Geneva Accords.

Now, if you want to treat these fucksticks like enemy combatants under the Geneva Accords, military personnel were completely within their rights to summarily execute them for not being in a distinguishable uniform while engaged in combat operations.

The response to 9/11 was to treat an Al Qaeda attack as if terrorism were a completely new unprecedented thing that had never been perpetrated on American soil before, which is a falsehood.
I dont know where you get this little tidbit from. The response to 9/11 was one that says we arent putting up with their shit anymore. We played nice with them for the last 20+ years and it got us no where other than increasingly deadly attacks. We fight back and guess what, no more attacks on our soil. Sounds like a resounding success to me.


There was the 1993 attack on the WTC, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and the bombing of the 1996 Olympic games, all events that preceded 9/11 by half a decade or more.
2 domestic terrorism cases that were dealt with more strongly than the international one. You forgot quite a few major cases though. Dont forget the Cole, the embassies in Africa,and the Khobar Towers You should also note that the US was directly attacked more times under Clinton that all other presidents combined.

Furthermore, war is probably the worst response to terrorism as terror networks can't be effectively fought by regular armies in land wars. Regular armies are only good for two things: taking and holding territory, and taking and holding collateral/capital. This does nothing to stop terror networks with power structures and finance that exist separately from those of the nation states.
I actually agree that the current vision of fighting terrorism isnt working. The problem is, no one has any better ideas to keep areas stabilized without regular military units.


Perhaps a more effective way to fight terror would be to have special ops units that infiltrate terror networks for assassinations and sabotage. Meanwhile improving security measures at airports and harbors, in ways that are not as intrusive to citizens and their privacy. Also, training local police in counterterrorism (which is starting to happen now). [/quote]

The Mossad cant even do this with any real success. What makes you think Americans can?

And perhaps the most important part of the fight against terrorism would be going after the money. If we shake down the big-wigs that back terror networks and cut off their capital, that would be more effective than sending 10 divisions worth of surge. But this is unlikely to happen, we're talking about oil money, and the oil industry is probably the most powerful lobby in politics.
So how do you propose we find these big wigs if we dont use any interrogation methods any stricter than asking nicely if they want their lawyer?