So what has this War on Terror accomplished?

I was just wondering what you guys think this "War on Terrorism" has accomplished so far for the United States and her allies.

In my opinion, and again it only subjective, I think this war on terrorism has only created more terrorists. Within the US, this war has just lead to the degradation of the Bill of Rights(Patriot Act), and a higher threat of terrorist activity. Our govt. has said we are at more of a threat.

We ousted the Taliban out of Afghanistan, but haven't executed Osama Bin Laden yet. What ever happened to the head hunt for him? I know we killed/imprisoned a few of the higher leaders, but we still don't have them all.

Is it possible most of the Taliban soldiers still exist, and have just joined smaller terrorist groups like Al-Queada?
If so, then have we accomplished anything?

And, I thought it was Osama Bin Laden who bombed the United States(Sept. 11). Not the Iraqi leader.

[Edited on 22-2-2003 by stanky]

My friend you seem to be extremely naive when understanding the state the world is in.
Read through the war on terror threads and you'll find your answers.

Good reply mad scientist & it's saved me at least half an hours typing....LOL

Cheers,
Deep

lot of folk believe that we have accomplished a lot because the Taliban was removed. the party line is...this is an unconventional war that will take years but we are winning. Saddam is the next logical step because he supports terrorism and has WMD.

truthfully, Kabul is the only semi-stable part of afghanistan and the warlords (some supporters of the Taliban) are controlling the rest of the country. production of opium has continued and terrorist or either hiding with the general population or have fled to pakistan and other arab states.

Martyrdom/suicide attacks comes from shi'a islam and Saddam is sunni. its highly unlikely that he has the support or is supporting the shiites he's the only thing standing between the shiites controlling iraq...removing saddam will only lead to a battle within that country between the different sects. the kurds will want N.Iraq to estiblish a kurish state. turkey is mostly likely being promised that won't be allowed...iran (shiite controlled) is seeking the "bomb" and preparing to help the large shiite population in iraq take over once Saddam is gone. we'll have one war with Saddam and the republican guard, and then another with Iran and the shiite population all while the kurds are trying to become independant.

what does this all have to do with the war on terror, it is the shiites that perform suicide attacks. it is more likely that after saddam is removed and Franks takes over governing Iraq that attacks will become more common place in iraq and israel as well as in the US. Franks is going to have a big mess on his hands. it's going to be costly and it won't protect the US one bit in the long run.

who knows maybe the shiite population won't listen to their "devine" imams and will instead entrust the US and her allies with setting up a new regime. very unlikely but anything is possible.

personally i think we should have gone to war against Iran first anyways, they are a legitamate target in the war on terror, in fact, they are the best target, everybody knows they are the largest supporter of terrorism in the world

iran?????? really?? i wud have said 11 yrs ago that the usa shud have finished iraq off if i knew they wud be such a problem today

I think Iraq is a good target, i just dont think it was the best and the one we should have gone after, we should have gone after Iran

So, the terrorist threat has only increased since Sept. 11?

We have accomplished nothing.

I don't understand this impatience. People like you Skanky have done nothing to with ridding terrorists, and act like we have failed. It's been a year and half since 9/11. They expect it to take a hell of a lot longer than that.

We killed of bunch of terrorists. Hardly any civilians. We could have nuked the middle east if we were in a hurry. But we are going after the guilty. These things take time.

You libs are all the same. You complain about not being defended and want protection from the terrorists. Then you want to minimize civilian casualties. Then when civilian casualties are at a minimum you complain that the wars taking too long, and claim that all the hard work and men that fought and died did it for nothing because we did not meet your schedule of when this thing should have ended. If I was there Boy I would bunch you in the face right now.

The Answer(s) To All Your Questions...

I'm sick of the #e, lazy ass posting on this board.

MS, what's the deal with being so condescending to this guy? This question requires a proper debate. You are no authority on the matter, u can't just give a definative answer.

Mutilator don't insult peoples intellengence by posting blantant White House propaganda.

KKing seems to think that we always need a target, and seeing a OBL has disappeared, Saddam is the next best thing.

Saph, thank you.

In my opinion the war on terror is almost farcicle.

Where is Osama Bin Laden for a start?

Was he not the main target of this war?

Where is the conclusive evidence that Saddam supports terror networks?

Does anyone have any?

In my opinion Saddam has nothing to do with the War on Terror, that's dried up. Now its just a war on Whoever.

Orginally posted by grunt_ignited:

"You libs are all the same. You complain about not being defended and want protection from the terrorists. Then you want to minimize civilian casualties. Then when civilian casualties are at a minimum you complain that the wars taking too long, and claim that all the hard work and men that fought and died did it for nothing because we did not meet your schedule of when this thing should have ended. If I was there Boy I would bunch you in the face right now."

- LOL

Fantastic_Damage, what are you talking about? White House Propaganda? Maybe if you would have took the time to look at my link you would have seen that all it shows is the facts about what the war on terrorism has accomplished thus far. I don't feel I should have insulted anyone by posting that link.

Osama Bin Laden is an interesting issue the man has not shown his face in quite some time. Potentially there are two reasons this is happening, either he is actually dead or these tapes are the result of the culmination of his speeches (as in the words are being put together from prerecorded information). But if that were the case then why not cosmetically change another person to look like him? The other issue is that he is alive and that for some reason he is unable to show his face. But that reason can't have anything to do with disfigurement or illness. As it would be politically advantageous to him
to appear if these factors had presented themselves.

So why has he not shown his face and if he is dead why has someone else not been surgically altered to look like him. If you think about the reasons Moslems in general do not show there faces then you realize what the problem is.

Osama Bin Laden ordered the attack against the World trade center because he thought it was the real world trade center. He attacked the Pentagon because he thought it was akin to the "world trade center" in relevance to military activity in this country. Essentially he failed in destroying what he intended to destroy. This in relation to interfering with the central hub of the American military- industrial complex. To be really specific he made a Jackass of himself and the country, which, with the support of the Taliban was his. In now under the control of the United States. I have my own reasons for believing that Osama Bin Laden is already dead, my impression is no one has agreed to be altered to bear his resemblance as a reuslt of the embarrassment albeit shame he has brought to those who believed in him.

The terrorist groups that exist at present were already there. They simply are presenting themselves as a reuslt of Osama's decision to attack the US. There are not more of them; there are less as a result of the afghan war. Which resulted in substantial losses to the forces, which existed prior to the war. The Taliban and al-queada were one in the same and losses to the Taliban lessened support for the Al-queada. Essentially what I am saying here is that the war against Afghanistan substantially lowered the al-Queued recources both in relation to personnel and military assets. It was also a crushing blow to confidence in relation to the opinion of Moslems. Who feel the terrorist leaders have any idea what they are talking about.

Saddam Hussein committed an act of Genocide; he committed that act with the use of chemical weapons.
In all likelihood those weapons are not homegrown which would be less of a problem if they were. Its very likely those weapons were purchased Illegally

Put it you this way spanky how does one deal with leaders who commit Genocide. Do we say gee its ok we know you did not mean it, just don't do it again. Or do we say sorry loser the game is over???

It never ceases to amaze me that people will be so ignorant to think (if not buntly say) "This is my opinion, therefore I am right. Even if I'm wrong. I believe this, so I'm right! F*** you if you don't believe me."
And they say people don't behave like those who govern them....
I guess people will never really learn the difference between opinion and fact....

Where is the evidence that Osama Bin Laden's Al-Quaeda network were responsible for 911? A dodgy video tape and a magic flame-proof passport simply don't cut it with me.

It amazes me whow everyone has been sucked in so easily, why is no one asking these questions?

Fantastic_Damage:

Oh those questions have been asked. But, they were conveniently swept under the rug by people who demanded logical evidence supporting a US conspiracy.

I think its funny how people think its so absurd for the US to be involved in Sept. 11, but recent events in the United States proves our government lies to its citizens and manipulates them.


Examples: JFK assassination, Operation Northwoods (the govts plan to use terror attacks on US soil and blame it on cuba in order to have an excuse to oust Fidel Castro), WW2 (wallstreet funded the Nazi regime).


www.larouchepub.com...

Stanky speaking specifically in relation to dealing with Castro the US decided to deal with it but not in that
way I know quite a bit about this Stanky so would like to hear what other info you have on this subject.

As far as plans, whenever something like for instance the infiltration of a major city (Miami). By people who admit they work for types like Castro (spies) occurs. Our government is obligated to do something besides stick in head dirt and argue over the idea that it�s really not happening. Its called acts of war (invasion) and in general responses which pertain to war are offered.

As far as JFK would suggest that you submit you cold hard facts to congress, I do not have the address but am sure you will be able to access it. In relation to Nazi's investing in US Steel feel free to post a link

Originally posted by Toltec

I know quite a bit about this Stanky so would like to hear what other info you have on this subject.

Here's an idea...

Why don't you bother yourself to read the link?

Also, why aren't people questioning the complete secrecy of highly influential groups like:

Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, etc....