RE: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,180310,00.html

You have to wonder if this is at ALL related to India and it's attacks on the Somalia Pirates, if not, then what was the Goal of the attack?

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
You have to wonder if this is at ALL related to India and it's attacks on the Somalia Pirates, if not, then what was the Goal of the attack?

Well, not to bore you to much, but I have my own pet theories about these kinds of attacks.

Every terrorist attack that gets away with causing damage is referred to by the Western Media as a "success."

And by this time, I'm sure that would be terrorists believe that if they get away with an attack, it's worth while.

But it seems to me that for ANY attack to be a success, it has to accomplish some change in the policy of the Nation being attacked. In other words, did 9/11 make every American anxious to surrender to AQ? Is this attack going to make India give in to the Kashmiri rebels or Pakistan?

I would say that almost all of these attacks are in fact dismal failures. The policy of the Nation attacked actually becomes harder, the goals of the terrorists are further removed from success.

But everyone seems happy to refer to them as "success." Who am I to argue?

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
You have to wonder if this is at ALL related to India and it's attacks on the Somalia Pirates, if not, then what was the Goal of the attack?

Well, not to bore you to much, but I have my own pet theories about these kinds of attacks.

Every terrorist attack that gets away with causing damage is referred to by the Western Media as a "success."

And by this time, I'm sure that would be terrorists believe that if they get away with an attack, it's worth while.

But it seems to me that for ANY attack to be a success, it has to accomplish some change in the policy of the Nation being attacked. In other words, did 9/11 make every American anxious to surrender to AQ? Is this attack going to make India give in to the Kashmiri rebels or Pakistan?

I would say that almost all of these attacks are in fact dismal failures. The policy of the Nation attacked actually becomes harder, the goals of the terrorists are further removed from success.

But everyone seems happy to refer to them as "success." Who am I to argue?

Dave

I agree whole heartily, where as I do have my own opinion on what's going on, I have yet to see where the Terrorist get what they want. Nor do we ever hear about what they want. It seems more and more of them just want to kill innocent people and get killed themselves, as long as it hits the media.

The terrorists just want to keep pushing their radical beliefs on the entire world through the use of brutal violence. Has it worked? Are people around the world bowing down to allah left and right? No. Of course not. I'm sure roughly 99% of the world's population realizes that terrorists are causing no positive change in our societies. That's why they are called terrorists. They only come to bring terror through the actions of suicide and mass murder. Clearly their belief system promotes death. In the end, all they ever accomplish is screwing themselves and anyone else in their path out of a chance to experience happiness and freedom. Who would want to follow that? I hope no one would...

Their purpose is to make people's lives so intolerable that they will turn against their own government's policies, and therefore do their bidding to get the geography they desire.

The World is not any more complex then it was 200 hundred years . Its just that communications has made it smaller!!!.There has always been those individuals out there that has a desire to make every one and every thing bend to his own liking.And if They or It doesn't conform to his liking he kills it!!!.

quote:

Originally posted by Golgoth:
Their purpose is to make people's lives so intolerable that they will turn against their own government's policies, and therefore do their bidding to get the geography they desire.

A person can commit any crime and say it is for the above. So, if they publicly eat live babies, will that make us want to get rid of our government and "do their bidding."

They are nuts, and their fantasy of "success" is promoted by referring to acts like this one at Mumbai, or 9/11, as successes.

And as we all know, in fact people are ready to do anything to kill them, and the concept of actually "surrendering" to their aims is not even on the table - Even negotiating with them is not on the table.

Each and ever one of their "successes" is a total and complete failure.

Dave

It would be a blessing if India and the Packs nuked each other....

They attempt to replace an authority that derives from the “consent of the governed” with a condition of fear and horror, transforming a “state of consent” into a “a state of terror.”

quote:

Originally posted by Stategic:
They attempt to replace an authority that derives from the “consent of the governed” with a condition of fear and horror, transforming a “state of consent” into a “a state of terror.”

Which is to say, they are stark raving nuts...

Because not only has that not happened, the opposite has. While people are naturally afraid of being victims, they're primary reaction is that of rage and hate. Not exactly "giving in," is it?

These "successful" terrorist attacks are from any rational perspective, complete failures. This one in Mumbai is no different. The Indian Government is now in the position to take any steps they want to, with the Indian public backing them 100 percent - Just as we backed our government 100 percent after 9/11.

Now, here's a tactic they could use which might gain them something. If instead of flying planes into the WTC, what if those 19 men had gathered in DC, and commited suicide in full view of television cameras, without harming anyone else?

Quite a few Americans would have reacted with sympathy. Gaining that sympathy would have been a 'success." But their incapable of thinking like that.

Dave

Ther terrorist of the world are not only perpetrating terror on those outside their own areas but from within in iordser to bring the centuries old tribal wars back so they can continue their horror and destruction on the whole world while the old tribal probelms continue to confound those in the modern day in the nations search for peaceful resolutions of their differences. Guerilla warfare is not confined to hit and run by force but are and for many centuries have been in the [political arena. The old axiom of "divide and conquer" is still a truism. when nations and tribes can honestly come together and work for the common good of mankind and put aside their petty diffwerences, then the world can divest itself of those who regale in the power of the sword and begin to honor and live by the power of the mind and pen with non-violent, peaceful resolution of problems that allow each nations people to live in calm and void themselves of fear. standing armies are not in themselves a probelm, but the misuse of them is when evil men aND their brokers are allowed to gain power through the sword and politics. Only the citizen has true unadulterated power over their lives and the ability to keep peace with their neighbors through their representation in their several governments. The world has a great need for anger management and the desire to live together with compassion and understanding of those who may think and live differently than others. Each of us is an individual and has thier own idea of what they need and want from thier short lives and have that God given right, but only to the extent that others may have and exercise their rights and ideology in peace and as a good neighbor.
There will to the end, always be those who want thiwer neighbors bounty and will commit evil deeds to aquire such. Those are the perpetrators of evil and destruction on the earth and are, and should be, the common enemy of all honorable and peaceful men, collectively.

quote:

Originally posted by Golgoth:
Their purpose is to make people's lives so intolerable that they will turn against their own government's policies, and therefore do their bidding to get the geography they desire.

I don't know about that. Considering the rhetoric coming from the white flag bunch in this country, it sounds like they migh have a chance.

I notice that none of the news agencies mention that ALL of the victims were unarmed.

Wonder what the outcome might have been if a few of those attacked had been armed with autoloader pistols?

If all the allied countries would come together and form a search line through out the tribal area of Pakistan and drag out all the radical islamist we may find that some of the killings would cease. As long as Pakistan is keeping everyone at bay from entering it's borders we will have them training there to carry out the next act. Don't Pakistan see where the trouble is stemming from...It's is tribal sectors. The Taliban and Alqaida knows that Pakistan won't allow anyone to come in after them, so they bring people in from other countries train them and send them out to kill innocent people. I think first they need to educate these people, because no truly educated person would be willing to go to their death for the cause of someones say so. Osama is educated so he calls the shot, you won't find him running out with his AK-47 ambushing the American troops, he's not yet ready to give his life..that's a true coward...send in the dunce and let them go to hell for the act they commit.

Mumbai attack shows evil of islamonazis.

Precisely, and because of the nature of the market-state, which is a state that defines its main ambition not as seeking the well-being of its people, but as maximizing the opportunities it offers its citizens, as well as the actions of rogue nation-states, the key components and knowledge are very close to being available to them — witness the nuclear Wal-Mart run in Pakistan by A. Q. Khan. With such weapons, the terrorists will be able to unleash a super-9/11, with scarcely imaginable human and psychological costs.

1 2

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by Stategic:
They attempt to replace an authority that derives from the “consent of the governed” with a condition of fear and horror, transforming a “state of consent” into a “a state of terror.”

Which is to say, they are stark raving nuts...

Because not only has that not happened, the opposite has. While people are naturally afraid of being victims, they're primary reaction is that of rage and hate. Not exactly "giving in," is it?

These "successful" terrorist attacks are from any rational perspective, complete failures. This one in Mumbai is no different. The Indian Government is now in the position to take any steps they want to, with the Indian public backing them 100 percent - Just as we backed our government 100 percent after 9/11.

Now, here's a tactic they could use which might gain them something. If instead of flying planes into the WTC, what if those 19 men had gathered in DC, and commited suicide in full view of television cameras, without harming anyone else?

Quite a few Americans would have reacted with sympathy. Gaining that sympathy would have been a 'success." But their incapable of thinking like that.

Dave

Shades of the burning monk of Saigon. Remember how that worked out for Diem.

quote:

Originally posted by MGYSGTLee:


I don't know about that. Considering the rhetoric coming from the white flag bunch in this country, it sounds like they migh have a chance.

I'd like to see a quote from anyone advocating surrender to Al Qaeda.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by MGR28:
Clearly their belief system promotes death. Who would want to follow that? I hope no one would...

Unfortunately, terrorists activities will most likely continue not just because their belief system promotes death, it promotes the SANCTITY of death!

Another point is their actions promote visability! The more radical the circumstances, the more visability they get. Grachus said that if the same 19 9/11 terrorists decided to commit suicide in Washington, DC would have only gained sympathy!

But what if, the media were to ignore what was happening and not flock like sheep to the situation? I'm just spit-balling here too. It would have been very difficult to ignore 9/11 because everyone originally thought the first attack was simply an accident! I, among millions of others, watched the second airplane hit! All concerns about it being an accident ended immediately. But could the India attack have been ignored by the media? What success would there have been then?

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by MGYSGTLee:


I don't know about that. Considering the rhetoric coming from the white flag bunch in this country, it sounds like they migh have a chance.

I'd like to see a quote from anyone advocating surrender to Al Qaeda.

Dave

Surrender to Al Qaeda Dave?

I think you're off-message. According to the anti-terrorist league, they're not interested in taking your surrender. They want to take your life.

Besides who'd show up to accept it, and how would you know?