let us be audacious against terrorism

[belalady]

Certain countries are the back bases of terrorism, although their leaders like to enjoy the fruits of our civilization. It is not necessary to clog such as an adhesive plaster on a wooden leg after each attack (ex : against the Pretty Twins Towers, or Madrid, the 11th), step by step, because it is what we seem to do and what we make. It is the other way round: we must have a more ambitious foreign politics. Otherwise we will always be behind. And this makes them laugh and make fun of us. It is as a plumber who is desperately trying to stop the ones after the others the escapes and the holes in pipes, thinking that they stop one day, while somebody further ahead in the drain would plan to continue to make holes progressively. To fight terrorism as we do it is not effective and it is endless. It is necessary to develop a daring foreign policy and completely or at least a little different, as the one I recommend on my last posts on this site. Defending the religious freedom in the world just like America defended the "Human Rights" last decades to fight against Communism, is the only way to suceed in hitting them, Only this kind of diplomacy will wrestle efficaciously against terrorism. It will be the next challenge to take up this century which comes for the democratic nations. And it should be archieved.
I strongly invite the readers to include and understand the spirit of these lines by reading my last message, link here :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=43117#post43117
which refers and will drive you to my principal message, “About freedom and Iraq” :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3664
you can read too :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3906

Best regards

 

[AtlantaWalter]

I agree m'lady; the countries fighting terrorism are taking this battle far to lightly. While the anti-terrorist countries may view this as disposing of a despot and granting Iraq freedom, the terrorists see it in a completely different light. This is not a geographical conflagration whereby one side seeks to conquer and hold a few acres of land or simply removing a political opponent and his system; this is a battle for a way of life.

If it is our purpose to enjoin in "Defending the religious freedom in the world", our leaders need to recognize that the enemy is bound and determined to destroy not just our armed forces but also our way of life. If it follows the same road as previous religious wars, it will be long and bloody.