Terrorists won,U.S lost?

[ashokdeiva]

I think US failed. US has most advance military technology but why it takes this much time? This is due to lack of their experience on field even after than 10 years of the war on terror.

Sky Line, because you achieved victory in Eelam war does not mean that you have more experiance than that of the US. What you did is a complete violation of human rights, you went on a carnige to get the LTTE, in the process you killed more civilians than the terrorist.
If US did the same they would have achieved the victory long back. They are not able to erase the scums Talib because it can not be achieved with out killing civilians in mass over few hours as you have killed more civilians.

 

[Ganga]

The problem here is that the US is fighting an idea post 9/11.It is easy to defeat an army , but it is very difficult to defeat an idea. Islamic terrorism is nothing but an idea.

 

[ashokdeiva]

The problem here is that the US is fighting an idea post 9/11.It is easy to defeat an army , but it is very difficult to defeat an idea. Islamic terrorism is nothing but an idea.

Not only this is an Idea, but not a organized regular army, they fight like cowards and US can not win the battle with out killing scores of civilians. The thing is that if Afgan gets a good and stable government with adecute security infrastructor they can move on by keeping the Talibs at bay

 

[AUz]

So the calculus is purely based upon what it cost financially per adversary? I wonder what the picture would look like if we include the slighted image of Islam, the loss of prestige for a religion, the embarrassment of a community over the spectacular defeat of two of their armies and the violations of the lands those armies were tasked to defend...

Any more?

Are you stupid or what? Heck! you're a "professional"

Mr Gambit from where does Islam came into this? "Defeat of two of Armies of Islam"? WTF? Are you kidding me? By the way,which is second Army other than Iraqi Army? Well, ANY army in the world would face the same fate if she goes head-on with the U.S military--How is it an embarrassment for us,billions of Muslims in the world? Did you get embarrassed when Turkey took over Northern Cyprus because by your retarded logic,A "Muslim" Army took over a "Christian" country Or ANY Christian would get embarrassed if some stronger Muslim country invades and conquer the weaker "christian-majority" country? You're still living in the age of Saladin vs Richard the lion heart era ...

 

[jeypore]

Not only this is an Idea, but not a organized regular army, they fight like cowards and US can not win the battle with out killing scores of civilians. The thing is that if Afgan gets a good and stable government with adecute security infrastructor they can move on by keeping the Talibs at bay

Wonder why they are all hanging out at the southeast region!!!!!!!!

 

[below_freezing]

A bit too premature to call it a failure. There are pros and cons currently from war of terror (WOT). US internal security has improved alot, Americans have never been safer travelling around these days, but economically wise, it kind of messed up the US economy. There is no clear winner or loser currently in this WOT.

Against terrorist, no matter how advance your military is, fighting a war with them is near impossible, due to the fact that it's hard to differentiate between a terrorist and civilian first of all. And then comes the factor that the civilian casuality has to be minimized, and we all know terrorist are often hiding behind civilian infrastructures.

If the US didn't care about civilian casuality, perhaps the WOT could have been won easily, though it would have involved alot of innocent civilian deads. Not a feasible idea in today's world.

Wrong. It would cost the US far more to kill all Afghan civilians than now, not only through weapons use but through reduced US prestige, reduced US soft power, reduced investment into and by the US, the polarization of world opinion against the US, increased spending by the US on propaganda to counteract this, increased danger to American citizens abroad by lone gunmen, etc etc.

The US picked the least bad strategy, too bad it was still horrible compared to doing nothing.

 

[ashokdeiva]

Wonder why they are all hanging out at the southeast region!!!!!!!!

which south east region are you talking? the one that borders with Pakistan

 

[RezRoll]

Wrong. It would cost the US far more to kill all Afghan civilians than now, not only through weapons use but through reduced US prestige, reduced US soft power, reduced investment into and by the US, the polarization of world opinion against the US, increased spending by the US on propaganda to counteract this, increased danger to American citizens abroad by lone gunmen, etc etc.

The US picked the least bad strategy, too bad it was still horrible compared to doing nothing.

No one said anything about killing all Afghan civilians, I said that a high loss of innocent civilians was going to happen if the US decided to go gung-ho against all terrorist residing in Afghanistan.

And yes, all the reasons u mentioned is why I said at the end, IT IS NOT A FEASIBLE IDEA to have such a strategy (disregarding civilian casuality) when fighting against terrorist.

Anyway since you said US picked a bad strategy, in your mind, what would be a better strategy to fight terrorist?

 

[gambit]

Not only this is an Idea, but not a organized regular army, they fight like cowards and US can not win the battle with out killing scores of civilians. The thing is that if Afgan gets a good and stable government with adecute security infrastructor they can move on by keeping the Talibs at bay

No one here ever had and probably will never have the awful feeling of helplessness in trying to distinguish the difference between an enemy combatant and a non-combatant. Notice I did not use the word 'soldier' or 'civilian' because that would be too easy. Technically speaking, a civilian can be a 'combatant' and a legal target under the laws of war, a soldier can be a non-combatant and an illegal target under those same laws. These guys can barely tell the difference between a dog and a cat.

 

[Rank]

First these talibans are not terrorist because they are freedom fighter and fight agaisnt BS invaders like USA ...

secondly Taliban won and terrorist (USA) lost! change the title!

and those are fighting and killing Pakistan's are funded international agencies terrorists from Afghanistan under trained and providing weapons from enemy consulates in AFG

 

[laiqs@mi]

First these talibans are not terrorist because they are freedom fighter and fight agaisnt BS invaders like USA ...

secondly Taliban won and terrorist (USA) lost! change the title!

and those are fighting and killing Pakistan's are funded international agencies terrorists from Afghanistan under trained and providing weapons from enemy consulates in AFG

\


bohot alllllllllaaaaaaa

 

[canadian icehole]

Mr. A$$hole, Maybe then the conclusion of US to win would be to become terrorist faction to Your (other) Countries. Maybe then they will be considered Winners in this battle..

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

...what about the security of the state that US has created over last 9 years, or all the potential terrorist plots that have been stopped in there tracks....

You need to look at the forest. The Americans have to deal with the Patriot Act which have it's pros and cons. Once you are forced to change your ways then you pretty much gave the terrorists a victory. As someone living North of the 49th parallel, I'm seeing a fort being built up with people peeping outwards through gun ports looking at the hills. OBL and most of his merry men may be dead but they achieved their objectives with very little effort.

As for uncovering plots, it's difficult to say if it is due to better reporting or increased occurrences. The silver lining is that the US government have now streamlined their operations to be more efficient.

I can't help but think of a quote from Ben Franklin regarding liberty and security: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[foxbat]

First these talibans are not terrorist because they are freedom fighter and fight agaisnt BS invaders like USA ...

secondly Taliban won and terrorist (USA) lost! change the title!

and those are fighting and killing Pakistan's are funded international agencies terrorists from Afghanistan under trained and providing weapons from enemy consulates in AFG

Ah .. The return of Good Taliban - Bad Taliban saga... Tell that to the families of relatives of 25 people who died a couple days back in Quetta

Some times I wonder, which is a more potent weapon of the terrorists.. the AK 47 and RDX or the brainwashed minds of people like these...

 

[laiqs@mi]

Ah .. The return of Good Taliban - Bad Taliban saga... Tell that to the families of relatives of 25 people who died a couple days back in Quetta

Some times I wonder, which is a more potent weapon of the terrorists.. the AK 47 and RDX or the brainwashed minds of people like these...

cant you read news???
before commenting you should have read news.
t.t.p accepted they have done. because 3 alqaida leaders were arrested 2 days before the blast.
that was the counter.
we all know t.t.p is supported by who.
so dont sh!!t here. good taliban are freedom fighters and bad taliban are indian supported taliban

 

[foxbat]

cant you read news???
before commenting you should have read news.
t.t.p accepted they have done. because 3 alqaida leaders were arrested 2 days before the blast.
that was the counter.
we all know t.t.p is supported by who.
so dont sh!!t here. good taliban are freedom fighters and bad taliban are indian supported taliban

As long as people like you are there, enemies of Pakistan never have to worry about Pakistan prospering