We are told that terrorists are mindless, evil creatures of the abyss with no other intention than murdering as many people as possible, regardless where they come from.

However, so far, Al Qaida has been very selective with their targets. In a very rational way the organisation took actions against those countries which were part of the Coalition (latest example Spain) or those who supported them (Riad). They didn't attack Germany, or Switzerland, or Russia or Brasil and it is very likely that the next target will be Italy, England, Poland or Bulgaria.

Why would somebody whose only intention is to kill and murder innocent civilians be so selective? Damn, for an organisation like Al Qaida it ought to be very easy to kill thousands of people in countries like China or India.

And now we have a problem: it is very important to label terrorists as irrational hardly-human beings. As soon as they are perceived as rational buisnessmen, the public might start to think there could be other (better) ways to deal with those people than to be at war with them.

Therefore it is important for the 'war against terror' -coalition to maintain the image of terrorists as vile monsters. How can they achieve this?
Here's my recommendation: they should fake a terrorist attack in a country like Germany. Meanwhile the US certainly has enough information to create genuine Al Qaida bombs. They could blow-up something like a children hospital and leave two bodies of recently passed away Guantanamo prisoners

I'm sure this would result in an overwhelming support for the war against terror for many years...

Ahhh....I have to get back to reality.
Something like this could only happen in a world where the leaders of the forces of righteousness are preaching about morality and ethics, but then don't live up to those standards.

Luckily, our leaders do...

Don't you think they can be indiscriminant while still being selective? They select the country, but don't care who they kill there.

No one has to tell me that an organization which targets civilians is vile. I learned that in the sand box.

To answer your question - no, the US should not fake a terrorist attack. Shouldn't a war against terrorism have overwhelming support without it? Or is there a reason to believe that there is something good in terrorism?

Russia has been attacked more by terrorists than any other country except Israel. They don't attack Germany (yet) because Germany is the European homebase (which is why Germany is so important in the fight against them). They don't attack Switzerland probably because a lot of their money is there (and because nothing is better after a day of killing children on their way to school than a Toblerone).

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

No, this doesn't work. We do not make any differenciations regarding terrorism. All they do is killing people. Their maliciousness is universal. It makes no sense to select a specific country just to murder people. If this would really be their goal, they would strike in countries where they can achieve that goal very easily. Please see below in my reply to startup's post what I mean.

No, a war against terrorism must not have an overwhelming support.
At least not when its fought the way it is. It is the most stupidest thing to believe you can go to war against a social phenomena like terrorism.
The logics of war don't apply to a confrontation with a NGO: attack a country, win the war and the bad boys is gone. How could this work with an international NGO? It doesn't. That's why no longer the terrorists themselfes are in the focus of the 'war against terror', but countries who are supposed to have ties with terrorists. Yet this strategy fails (take a look at Afganistan or Iraq). By removing the leaders of those countries terrorism didn't diminish, on the contrary.

I hope you are beginning to understand what I mean? I fear if we will continue this stategy and remain unsuccessful, e.g. we attack more countries but the rate of terrorist attacks all over the globe will still increase, we will loose the trust of the people. Especially if the attacks of Al Qaida will only happen in countries who play a very active role in this war against terror (hence my "recommendation")

"What the hell? It costs a lot, soldiers die, civilans of other countries die, but we are in greater danger than before" (A spanish friend of mine said something simliar)

Of course I don't justify terrorism. On the contrary, I want to get rid of it but the current strategy will strenghten terrorism, not weaken it. I fear in the years to come more and more people will loose their faith in this strategy, resulting in an implicit approval of terrorism, and that's what I fear most.
If you want to fight terrorism you have to eliminate the cause of it, not just the symptoms. Otherwise the cancer will return, stronger than ever.

I thought Russia was only attacked by chechenian terrorists, not by Al Qaida.
AFAIK, those terrorists never attacked another country, only Russia (I'm not sure, though)
Regarding Germany and Switzerland...in some way, this shows exactly that terrorists are rational people, who don't attack arbitrarily.
I agree completly that it is vital for the fight against terrorism that Germany is a big part of it. I fear, though, that because of the latest tensions with the US and the simultaneous best-relationship-ever with France, the coaltion against terrorism is weakening (btw, I think fight is a much better word than 'war', for it includes more options)

Furthermore, I think it is very important to differenciate between the various terror organizations: Al Qaida is not the same as the IRA, Abu Sayyaf is not like ETA, the Leuchtende Pfad (shining path?) ist not the same as Salafia Jihadia.
But the current strategy treats them all alike. Terrorist = Terrorist. I think this is a false approach. Every group has its own special characteristics, it is naive to assume the same strategy will work with every group (It's like a football coach who claims he wouldn't have to study the tactics of the opponent because they would all play the same game).

It is necessary and reasonable to use military force to remove concret terrorist institutions (like training camps etc). But the difficult part is to eliminate what causes terrorism in the first place. Focussing on the military aspect solely will contribute to the development of more terrorism, not less.

Of course my initial post was ment as a provocation and exaggeration. Yet I'm convinvced that the current strategy will fail and I wonder what our leaders will be willing to do to keep it alive.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "selective" then. It seems to me that terrorists do choose which nation's civilians to kill. I think 9.11 had all the hallmarks of intelligent management: clear goals, in-depth and comprehensive planning, flawless execution. That doesn't speak to me of "mindless, evil creatures of the abyss with no other intention than murdering as many people as possible". They knew who they wanted to kill, though they still wanted to murder as many as possible.
What if it did? I understand your point. Today we like to declare "war" on everything. We like to get wrapped up in the belief that we're really doing something. Still, I would hope that when we declare "war" on something, we actually get more in touch with it than we were in the past.

But back to "what if it did?" What if EVERY country was as committed to taking assertive action against the terrorists within their own borders. Would war (sans quotes) really be necessary?
Well, I think Afghanistan has been successful. You can't tell me that al Queda has AS EASY a time planning their attacks now as they had when the Taliban kept their diplomatic umbrella over them. And I don't see Iraq as related to the "War on Terror".

I don't agree with invasions (for all the reasons you stated) but I think at some point you're going to have to make the decision as to what to do with countries that don't want to play ball. If you have just one country that refuses to either take care of the terrorists within their own borders, or ask for help, then you have a nice little haven for terrorists. It becomes, like anything in a market economy, a bid for which third world despot can offer the most protection, and the greatest access to weapons and training ground at the lowest price.
This is what I have the hardest time understanding. What is the cause of terrorism? I don't think it's the easy stuff: remove infidels from the Holy Lands, stop meddling in foreign governments, etc.. Ignoring that there are very many different terrorist groups, I'll just concentrate on the ones closest to home: Islamic terrorists. There is a very real sociological and ideological difference between Jihadists and the rest of the civilized world. These people want a change in the entire religious, cultural, economic, and governmental rule of the world.

Aside from that, what if their demands are not acceptable to a civilised world? Would you accept the demands just to have peace? What's to stop us from having "SUV Terrorists", blowing up every person in an SUV because the automakers won't stop making them?

From whom do you think the Chechen terrorists draw money and inspiration?

To the last breath: diehard Chechen and Uzbek fighters trapped in Wana siege

__________________