BleepingComputer.com: What is the way to fight terrorism?

[quote name='GTK48' post='1184975' date='Mar 20 2009, 08:18 PM']The Vietnam War is over, a dark era in history.[/quote]

Just from my link earlier, it may explain why I used a graphic picture to show why the Troops were withdrawn in Vietnam and what is really happening again in Afghanistan. Most of the Mistakes done in Vietnam are being repeated at enormous cost to civilan lives, leading them to start to turn on the Troops there, as happened in Vietnam. The civilians really don't consider the Troops Liberators anymore.

[quote]The survey was carried out by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in late December and early January. Field workers conducted face-to-face interviews with [u]a random national sample of 1,534 Afghan adults in all 34 of the country’s provinces. [/u]It found that civilian casualties in US and NATO air strikes were a key factor in declining support. Seventy-seven percent of Afghans said such strikes were unacceptable, because the risk to civilians outweighed their value in fighting insurgents. And Afghans do not buy the US military’s contention that civilian casualties are the responsibility of Taliban insurgents because they operate from civilian areas. Forty-one percent of respondents blame poor targeting by international forces, whereas only 28 percent mainly blame insurgents for concealing themselves among civilians.

But despite all the talk about a new approach, and the fine words from Mullen and Gates, US officials continue to see the problem of civilian casualties primarily as a public relations problem, rather than an issue of tactics.[/quote]

[url="http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Costs_of_war:_The_civilian_casualty_issue"]http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Costs_of_war:_The..._casualty_issue[/url]

By all means Kill as many Terrorists as they can find, but don't do to little children like what happened in Vietnam. That is totally the wrong way to fight Terrorists and suits them fine in their recruting programs.

Instead of waging all out War in a Country that has laughed at everyone that has tried it for Centuries, like they have. Why not do to them what they do to us? The Aussies were feared in Vietnam, as they are in Afghanistan, for doing exactly that.

Train the Afghans by Specialists in the Field, let them go in under cover of darkness and let them pick the Terrorists off. That would put the whole Country onto the job, Mate.

This post has been edited by Abacus 7: 20 March 2009 - 06:54 AM

[quote name='"Abacus 7"']Train the Afghans by Specialists in the Field, let them go in under cover of darkness and let them pick the Terrorists off. That would put the whole Country onto the job, Mate.[/quote]

That would work. But The South Vietnamese Army was trained as well. I really think that Pakistan is harboring terrorists as well. If Bin Ladin is still alive I would wager that he is in Pakistan.

[quote name='GTK48' post='1184975' date='Mar 20 2009, 10:18 AM']As far as the number of Al Queada members one has to look at Islamic Fascists extremists as a whole. There are thousands of them all over the world. Al Queada is a name, there are terrorists that are not associated with Al Queada. And if anyone thinks that what happened on 9.11.2001 was planned and carried out by 200 people they are just plain silly. Just think of all of the planning involved, hijacking 3 planes simultaneously and doing what they did.[/quote]

It wouldn't take many to Plan the 11/9 attacks I'd say 200 is more than enough, As for numbers again, Obviously as part of your quoted story (You didn't need to quote the whole story either just the important points you wanted to make from it) below says it is impossible to know but I'll try to put some more info in one why I still think it is around the lower hundreds (Or at least hope it is if proved wrong and there are more).

[quote][u]Strength[/u]
It is impossible to known precisely, due to the decentralized stucture of the organization. Al-Qaida may have several thousand members and associates. It trained over 5,000 militants in camps in Afghanistan since the late 1980s. It also serves as a focal point for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, some members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.
External Aid[/quote]

It says over 5,000 were trained since the late 1980's, So lets say some of those were in there 30's they would be in there late 50's now do you think they would be able to be in combat at that age they might do bits of planning but I feel they might want to get out around that age. Also think that some of those would be dead now either by bombings, being shot down by ISAF forces (Remember most kills in Afghanistan can't be confirmed because most bodies are moved and buried as is part of their Religion, Al Qaeda were harboured there by the Taliban), also old age or disease may get them as well Life Expectancy is probably not as high as it is in our Countries.
Just say for example that 2000-3000 of those may have left the group or be dead it would only leave 2000-3000 again this may be an underestimate or overestimate. I also quote further from the Wiki Link again here - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Organization_structure"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Organization_structure[/url]

[quote]The number of individuals belonging to the organization is also unknown. According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates.[/quote]

If it is believed to be so weakly linked then it could be only be a small group around Bin Laden, It is disputed as to whether it even exists because of those weak links, so do you think with such weak links it will have big numbers of people?
That maybe why the part of Wikipedia I quote says 200-300 because they might be taking into their guess work these supposed weak links?

This post has been edited by woodyblade: 20 March 2009 - 09:07 AM

[quote name='cod head' post='1179824' date='Mar 16 2009, 10:50 AM']I am from the U.K.We had acts of terrorism for a long time via the Northern Ireland conflict.And the one thing that brought a end to that conflict was dialouge.[/quote]

Thanks cod head. You beat me to it. I was impressed that when Britain went from Margarate Thatcher to Tony Blair, one of his first steps was to begin talks with the IRA, where Thatcher had maintained the stance that she would not talk to terrorists. It is a mistake to think the conflict between Ireland and England was brief. It went on for several hundred years. Ireland is not much different in size from Austria, and it is much bigger than some of the other small countries of Europe which have been very influential, like Holland, and yet, Ireland's development suffered severely as a result of the fight imposed on them to gain or maintain their independence. A great deal of their culture is centered on their efforts to be independent.


About the current terrorism with regard to Al Qaeda, to me it looks a lot like an argument over gender equality. Should girls be sprayed with acid, deformed and disfigured, because they dare to want to learn and get an education? Should education and access to knowledge ever be withheld?

Zllio

As can be seen?

That is how Terrorists really work.

Noone really knows any real thing about their Numbers nor what they are really up to, we just all keep guessing, just like they have TRAINED us to do. That increases the TERROR!

The Viet Cong started it, the later ones have perfected it.

Before you can fight them, you have to sort yourself out and think their way, then you will beat them at their own Game, Mate.

[quote name='GTK48' post='1185110' date='Mar 20 2009, 11:50 PM']That would work. But The South Vietnamese Army was trained as well. I really think that Pakistan is harboring terrorists as well. If Bin Ladin is still alive I would wager that he is in Pakistan.[/quote]

Sorry to tell you?

The South Vietnamese Army was not Trained by many Specialists in the Field.

The Viet Cong was how the Specialists really got their knowledge at the time. It was a totally different War to ever before.

That was probably the only thing positive that can out of that conflict, but unfortunately it has been totally ignored by America, who are the Boss there.

The Aussies there are Trained Specialists to handle it. America and many other Countries have just as many Specialists through what was learned in Vietnam, but they are not used as Trainers?

Hang on?

The point about South Veitnamese Army Training was just that at that time noone knew the NEW/OLD Rules of the particular War, the French ignored all Rules so the Viet Cong did the same and beat them.

They were totally different to any Rules of War before. So in reality how could they be Trained in it? That was the Point I raised, Mate, when I said that they were never Trained by Specialists.

Many years on from that Conflict, the World has many Specialists that have been taught from those that Learned the Hard Lessons of Vietnam. It is no secret, Humans learn all the time, most of us, then they use that knowledge to Teach others, if they will just listen.

Unfortunately, the Lessons of Vietnam has been wasted on many people, now we are in a very similar situation of Warring on Terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. What did not work in Vietnam is still being applied to Afghanistan. That is just so impossible to believe, just like Terrorist Bases all over America, but Truth.

Think about it? That is not what the Terrorist want you to do, they would love you to just freak out, Mate.

I honestly think that if Terrorists were treated with the Contempt as they deserve there would not be a real Problem. Send Real Troops from their own County against them, not Invade. Train those Troops in what they need to fix it locally, leave your Trainers there with a Security Force, of course, then pull back out of it.

JMHO.

I think that Al Quaeda is trying to avoid the soviet mistakes of the cold war era, in the sense that the soviets had a rigid cell structure that was supposed to protect privacy and maintain party uniformity. A diffuse system, with numerous organizations affiliated with it to various degrees, would be much harder to penetrate and to dismantle.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 22 March 2009 - 04:06 PM

You are absolutely right. That is why I said that it is impossible for any single country to prevent these organizations from terrorist activity. I think an unified network of various security agencies, police, armed forces- will be able to demolish them.

[quote name='raj29' post='1189133' date='Mar 23 2009, 08:41 PM']You are absolutely right. That is why I said that it is impossible for any single country to prevent these organizations from terrorist activity. I think an unified network of various security agencies, police, armed forces- will be able to demolish them.[/quote]



As any FireFighter that has fought a Bush Fire can tell you, the only real way to fight a Fire is with Fire. For Example, in many cases they get way in front of it and control Burn back towards it, to take away the Material it needs to survive.

So too does it apply to Terrorists. They have Networks all over the World, but so too does Countries with their Security set ups, example, CIA, FBI, just from America? Those resources are not being utilised to their fullest in any way, instead the Powers that be insist on open Warfare. That is exactly what the Terrorists want, just like the Viet Cong did in Vietnam. The open Warfare turns the population against, what they term, the Invaders, thereby becoming willing Recruts for the Terrorists.

Simplist thing is to Train local Forces in the Area to a degree of Skill to allow them to quitely handle it. That could be done just quitely, just like the Terrorists are doing right now.

One of the major problems in fighting terrorist organizations is the racial and ethnic bias of our various intelligence organizations in the United States, plus downright prejudice and ignorance. Up until the '70s, there were a large number of Islamists and Arabists in the intelligence community who actually understoood the communities that the terrorists were based in or came from. Later additions to the terrorist community were always afraid that the well-trained, intelligent cultural experts would either go native (that is, identify too strongly with the studied and analyzed groups) or still identified too strongly with them, if that was what their nations of origin or ethnic affiliations or religious affiliations were. The result has been simply disastrous. Now it turns out that a lot of translators and analysts (almost 200) were fired because they were homosexuals. A lot of stupidity here during a very dangerous time.

This post has been edited by usasma: 28 March 2009 - 10:27 AM
Reason for edit: testing quotes

[quote name='"Abacus 7"']I honestly think that if Terrorists were treated with the Contempt as they deserve there would not be a real Problem. Send Real Troops from their own County against them, not Invade. Train those Troops in what they need to fix it locally, leave your Trainers there with a Security Force, of course, then pull back out of it.[/quote]

Until all of the major Arab Nations start speaking out against terror instead of applauding it, we and the rest of the free world are wasting our time.

dont know if this is the best way, but i believe the fastest and safest way to eradicate terrorism is to fight it with terrorism. we start murdering their women and children in the streets instead of just combing through their large populations (terrorist harboring countries) and searching for the real culprits. they will either stop immediately and concede defeat, or they will be forced to show their hand. Either would be good for the civilized world because they are not strong enough to fight us in a straight up war, and obviously their surrender would be ideal. I believe that this solution is ideal because while we are waiting and monitoring and basically doing nothing and allowing these terrorists to operate freely, WHO KNOWS HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Should we really risk treating the people of these terrorist nations with civility and humanely at the cost of a possible terrorist attack in the future, that could be much larger than what we have already experienced. i think not

I apoligize if i sound callouse, hateful, or numb to the problems of the rest of the world. and i know that some of you will say ,"but if we act like the terrorists, then we are just stooping to their level." but i am tired of these backwoods third world nations condemning americans and other civilized societies just because we have been successful or many of us worship a man named jesus (take your pick on why you think they do it).

But seriously, them and all those who harbor them deserve to die.

[quote name='DSTM' post='1184993' date='Mar 20 2009, 06:55 AM']Could have been planned by far less than 200 People.IMO.All that was needed was Planning,Recruiting and Timing.
Doesn't take an Army of them,when only 3 Planes are involved in the attack.
This tragic event shows no Country, is immune from these Terrorists,if they want to cause Death and Destruction.[/quote]

i would think that with these economic times maybe ethnocentrism would be a little lower. we have world issues. but i guess some have been raised to believe they are the greatest, and they will fall harder than all others

[quote][u]we start murdering their women and children in the streets instead of just combing through their large populations (terrorist harboring countries) and searching for the real culprits. [/u][/quote]

Sorry, Mate, that was tried in Vietnam and turned the whole Population against the American Agressors. Back then it was Bombing Villages with Naparm amongst other things.

Never kid yourself what was learned in Vietnam is vital now to fight Terrorism properly.

Little Lesson from Vietnam for you? The Americans were there, but so too were the Aussise and the Kiwis. The Aussies and Kiwis are traditionally known as the ANZACS and were the first to actually stop the Japanese in New Guinea, using the Kakoda Trial in WW2. They are known as the best Jungle fighting Troops in the World, were active in Borneo right up until involvement in Vietnam, some thing that everyone ignored, particularly the Viet Cong. When they arrived in Vietnam, the Viet Cong decided to make a lesson of them and sent a Battalion of over 2,000 against less than 200 Aussies, average age 20, but most 19. So started the Battle of Long Tan. Never again did the Viet Cong attack the Aussies head on. Link to it.

[url="http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/vietnam/longtan.html"]http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/vietnam/longtan.html[/url]

After that the Viet Cong left sleeping dogs lie. But then their real problems started.

When the American Forces made an attack it was usually by Chopper and Air Cover? The Viet Cong could hear them coming from miles away and just disappeared. But when the Aussies atacked? That was real TERROR. Aussies would come quitely, by foot all night if need be and just sit and wait. When the Viet Cong woke up, they would look around, then cook their Rice for Breakfast. Last thing they heard was, "G'day, Bang" It soon spread throughout Vietnam.

That is what is needed to fight terrorists at their own game, Mate.

Recently an Aussie SAS was killed in Afghanstan, after a Rocket was fired into their Camp. At his Funeral it was released that his Mates had gone after the Cell that was responsible and destroyed it, together with their Leader. I bet that they leave them alone after that?

That is the Training not being used in this Fight.

It is not necessary to kill civillians in any way, that is the absurdity of it all.

Powers that be think only open War will solve it? You have to be joking. It diddn't work in Vietnam and never will any more. THAT is the REAL Lesson of Vietnam.