General Clark on Fighting Terror

[Max Power]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-10-london-clark_x.htm

As the follow-up reports emerge from the strikes on the London transit system, it's not too early to begin drawing the implications for our own security efforts.. . . al-Qaeda's new threat is decentralized. Thursday's attacks in London have all the earmarks of such a "franchise" operation, locally planned and resourced with relatively modest means, emulating al-Qaeda without the vulnerabilities of centralized resourcing and direction.

Preventing attacks probably can't be accomplished by the administration's preference for taking out "state sponsors." And it's going to be very difficult to employ military means. National intelligence efforts, special police activities and local community policing efforts, which focus on identifying and targeting terrorist individuals and organizations, are required.

Defeat the ideology. But fighting terrorism at home isn't just a matter of "killing terrorists." Terrorists aren't born that way. They are created by their interaction with their surroundings. To win this war, we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.

. . . In the meantime, attention and resources must protect not just the airlines but also U.S. mass transit, rail and other infrastructure. Yet almost four years after 9/11, plans are late and resources lacking. The latest example: directing the Department of Homeland Security to submit a national strategy for the protection of U.S. transportation by April 1, 2005. The strategy still hasn't been delivered.

. . . In addition, the London attacks remind us how much more devastating even decentralized terrorist strikes could be were they to have employed biological, chemical or radiological weapons. The most profound threat we face is a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. And yet, despite the president's call to "prevent the worst people from getting the worst weapons," efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons have received short shrift. The latest example has been the administration's failure at the recent review conference to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

. . .The United States will win the war on terror when we bring to bear all the elements of our power -- not just our military might, civilian workforce and diplomatic skills, but also the power to persuade our allies in general and those in the Muslim community specifically to engage the culture of hate and terror and change it to reflect the best in all of us.

The flypaper strategy of "they'll attack us there instead of here" doesn't work. Retaliation doesn't work.

Considering that we're just going to "stay the course," it's only a matter of time before we're hit again.

 

[freeandfun1]

Considering that we're just going to "stay the course," it's only a matter of time before we're hit again.

It doesn't work? How do you know that? How does anybody know that?

Frankly, no matter what we do, it is only a matter of time before they hit us again. That's a given. To think otherwise is stupid. So he really isn't saying anything spectacular.

Keep this in mind... from 1992 to 2000 US interests were hit, on average, once every two years. Since 911, we haven't had another attack on US interest (that aren't involved in the war). So regardless of what the fool Clark might say, SOMETHING is working.... so why not give credit where credit is due?

 

[Max Power]

It doesn't work? How do you know that? How does anybody know that?

What doesn't work? Be more specific, I said more than one thing.

Frankly, no matter what we do, it is only a matter of time before they hit us again. That's a given. To think otherwise is stupid. So he really isn't saying anything spectacular.

I wouldn't expect Switzerland to ever get hit.

Keep this in mind... from 1992 to 2000 US interests were hit, on average, once every two years. Since 911, we haven't had another attack on US interest (that aren't involved in the war). So regardless of what the fool Clark might say, SOMETHING is working.... so why not give credit where credit is due?

That's specious reasoning. By your logic, I can claim that this rock is keeping away terrorists. Would you like to buy my rock?

BTW I like your little qualifier. Why don't we just declare war on anything, then we will never be attacked again (except for of course when we're involved in a war)!!

 

[ThomasPaine]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-10-london-clark_x.htm



The flypaper strategy of "they'll attack us there instead of here" doesn't work. Retaliation doesn't work.

Considering that we're just going to "stay the course," it's only a matter of time before we're hit again.

than to have them come here and kill us. Frankly I've never thought much of Gen. Clark he seems an intellectual lightweight. In addition he's a democrat which somewhat disqualifies him. Clark seems to be spouting the "let's not do anything overseas just secure the homeland and wait until next attacked". I'm not buying it.

Sure it will eventually take a change in Islamic attitudes but how long will that entail? Generations? A change in Islam itself? After all their mainstream ideology considers Christians and Jews to be "infidels that must be converted or destroyed". In my mind we need to put the fear of God, not allah, into them and Iraq is a start. And then "explain" it further to terrorist supporting states like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, that it isn't going to be "fruitful" or "healthy" to continue their terrorist support. It's going to be a long involved conflict which I'm not sure many in this country, particularly Democrats, have a recognition of nor the gut to wage. Here's praying, to God not allah, that we are not struck again, but should we be, we must be prepared to fight the long fight and exterminate, with extreme prejudice rather than the kid glove pc treatment we have fought the war thus far with, our enemy.. Thank you and have a pleasant tommorow.

 

[Max Power]

than to have them come here and kill us. Frankly I've never thought much of Gen. Clark he seems an intellectual lightweight. In addition he's a democrat which somewhat disqualifies him. Clark seems to be spouting the "let's not do anything overseas just secure the homeland and wait until next attacked". I'm not buying it.

That's a pretty closed minded view.

Sure it will eventually take a change in Islamic attitudes but how long will that entail? Generations? A change in Islam itself? After all their mainstream ideology considers Christians and Jews to be "infidels that must be converted or destroyed". In my mind we need to put the fear of God, not allah, into them and Iraq is a start. And then "explain" it further to terrorist supporting states like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, that it isn't going to be "fruitful" or "healthy" to continue their terrorist support. It's going to be a long involved conflict which I'm not sure many in this country, particularly Democrats, have a recognition of nor the gut to wage. Here's praying, to God not allah, that we are not struck again, but should we be, we must be prepared to fight the long fight and exterminate, with extreme prejudice rather than the kid glove pc treatment we have fought the war thus far with, our enemy.. Thank you and have a pleasant tommorow.

Again with the closed mindedness
Do a little research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Islam_and_other_religions

Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow "peoples of the book" ...The classical Islamic solution was a limited tolerance -- Jews and Christians were to be allowed to privately practice their faith and follow their own family law.

You're not going to have much luck putting the fear of God into SUICIDE bombers... or anyone who would ever consider it. I think they're over any fears.

 

[ThomasPaine]

That's a pretty closed minded view.



Again with the closed mindedness
Do a little research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Islam_and_other_religions


You're not going to have much luck putting the fear of God into SUICIDE bombers... or anyone who would ever consider it. I think they're over any fears.

Bullshit!! If they fear the death of their friends and family not just themselves then that is fear. You're the one that's closed minded.Closed to the idea of force to deal with force. Pitiful arrogant liberal.

 

[Max Power]

Bullshit!! If they fear the death of their friends and family not just themselves then that is fear. You're the one that's closed minded.Closed to the idea of force to deal with force. Pitiful arrogant liberal.

Forgive me for believing in freedom and liberty, thus being a liberal.
Pitiful arrogant statist.

The idea of force cannot work against SUICIDE bombers... they are willing to kill themselves. They are not afraid of force. Not to mention, there can be no retaliation against the perpetrators of a suicide attack.

 

[freeandfun1]

I can only speak of first hand experience, so what do I know?

I have done a lot of business (and still do to an extent, but not like before) in Malaysia and Indonesia... Many of my Muslim friends/business assoiciates have told me very clearly that the Quran says that the world must convert to Islam either by willingly or by the sword. You can believe what you want, but this is the pervasive belief of MOST Muslims. Even if it were not and was only believed by a paltry 5% of the world's Muslims, that is still 65 million people. That is a lot of frig'n suicide bombers.

You better git yur head outcha ass or you're gonna be bow'n to Mecca five times a day or dead... your choice.

 

[freeandfun1]

The idea of force cannot work against SUICIDE bombers... they are willing to kill themselves. They are not afraid of force. Not to mention, there can be no retaliation against the perpetrators of a suicide attack.

So sit back, do nothing and accept the casualties huh...? Hey, sounds like a grand idea and the one Clinton tried for eight years.... And what did that get us?? 911.

Go figure.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Forgive me for believing in freedom and liberty, thus being a liberal.
Pitiful arrogant statist.

The idea of force cannot work against SUICIDE bombers... they are willing to kill themselves. They are not afraid of force. Not to mention, there can be no retaliation against the perpetrators of a suicide attack.

government. Sorry bub but the only choice you seem to employ is to grab ankles and take it. Baloney!! Islam is sick! Ill!! From it's Imam head to it's wacko believers. You think the old rules about tolerance in Islam of Christians and Jews as "believers of the book" still holds? That's just an outright lie. Islam is corrupt and being further corrupted by it's very leadership. Don't accept what it's "supposed to believe in" rather pay attention to what it's Imams' preach in the mosque. Hatred, hatred, hatred. That's what these boys grow up on and that's what poisons their minds. Look at the bastards that attacked in London. Home grown. Raised in the current hatred that is expoused in the mosque by their Imams week in week out. It's a religious war bud. To act as if it isn't or to believe somehow that Islam is not preaching hate is to be foolish and ignorant..

 

[Gunny]

Forgive me for believing in freedom and liberty, thus being a liberal.
Pitiful arrogant statist.

The idea of force cannot work against SUICIDE bombers... they are willing to kill themselves. They are not afraid of force. Not to mention, there can be no retaliation against the perpetrators of a suicide attack.

If anyone around here is arrogant, it would be YOU.

It is ridiculous that you think force cannot be interdicted by greater force successfully. You are wrong.

The fact is, regardless your speculation, since we took the fight to them, they have not been here blowing up US noncombatants.

 

[Max Power]

If anyone around here is arrogant, it would be YOU.

It is ridiculous that you think force cannot be interdicted by greater force successfully. You are wrong.

The fact is, regardless your speculation, since we took the fight to them, they have not been here blowing up US noncombatants.

You are correct.
They have attacked US noncombatants, and they have attacked elsewhere, but they haven't attacked US noncombatants here.

If you ask me, it's only a matter of time before we're attacked here... regardless of the freedoms the Bush administration feels like taking away from us... mostly because the Bush administration doesn't feel like taking away the freedom of illegals crossing the border illegally. That's a shame.
If Bush and the Republicants or any of the Dummycrats felt like closing the border, they just might lose that crucial hispanic swing vote. That's a shame.

 

[5stringJeff]

You are correct.
They have attacked US noncombatants, and they have attacked elsewhere, but they haven't attacked US noncombatants here.

Holy crap... did you forget about 9/11? When 3,000 non-combantants died from a terrorist attack?!?

 

[Max Power]

Holy crap... did you forget about 9/11? When 3,000 non-combantants died from a terrorist attack?!?

Come on Jeff, a little reading comprehension, please.

since we took the fight to them, they have not been here blowing up US noncombatants.

they haven't attacked US noncombatants here.

Since "we took the fight to them," they haven't attacked US noncombatants here.

 

[5stringJeff]

Since "we took the fight to them," they haven't attacked US noncombatants here.

Sorry, missed that part. But don't you consider it a success that we have not been attacked here in the US?

 

[Zhukov]

General Clark is a knob.

And here's the best example as to why, at least from the excerpted portions:

The latest example has been the administration's failure at the recent review conference to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Terrorist organizations are not signatories of the Nucler Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The U.N. and the party that Gen. Knob campaigned with has consistently undermined our ability to persuade threat states like N. Korea and Iran to comply with our request to cease nuclear weapons development and allow inspections by failing to present a unified front against them. Gen. Knob is yet again proving he'd rather stand up to Pres. Bush than stand up to the Iranian ayatollah. Brave man that Gen. Knob.

And besides, the "most profound threat we face is" not "a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists", it is a biological one. But Gen. Knob never was particularly profound.

 

[Max Power]

Sorry, missed that part. But don't you consider it a success that we have not been attacked here in the US?

Not really. When was the last time (before 9-11) that we were attacked. 1993?

So, 8 years between WTC attacks. We've made it four since the last one. I don't consider that success (yet). We shall see.

 

[-Cp]

Not really. When was the last time (before 9-11) that we were attacked. 1993?

So, 8 years between WTC attacks. We've made it four since the last one. I don't consider that success (yet). We shall see.

You forgot about the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya and the USS Cole bombing...

 

[Max Power]

You forgot about the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya and the USS Cole bombing...

Again, people having trouble with the reading comprehension.

don't you consider it a success that we have not been attacked here in the US?

I didn't "forget" anything.

 

[5stringJeff]

Not really. When was the last time (before 9-11) that we were attacked. 1993?

So, 8 years between WTC attacks. We've made it four since the last one. I don't consider that success (yet). We shall see.

Considering that we have been in open war with al-Qaeda for almost four years, I'd say we're doing pretty good.