Topic: Terrorist threat

[Nielsen_Noetic]

It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.

That's my definition of irony.

[dutchie]

It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.

That's my definition of irony.

I think you to take out the big words and tell us what in God's name your saying. I've read your post 5 times, and I can't tell where the grammatical errors start, and where they end.
You make no sense.

[badpup]

Children..... just wait until your father gets home!!!!!
sarcasm and humour aside, personal attacks should be reserved for an enemy on the battlefield. This is really not the place,it is a forum for Military and political issues, and in this country all have a right to voice an opinion.

[Torlyn]

It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.

Frankly, I just found this funny. 

Caesar - Apparently we're just not smart enough.  Well, back to banging my head on the wall. 

T

[TCBF]

"Bombing the heck out of them is only a short term solution and will just perpetuate the problem."

Depends how many you kill when you bomb them.  It DOES cut down on repeat offenders.  This does, however, have to be conducted with other operations on the political and civil front.  But that doesn't mean you stop bombing.  The three complement each other.

Tom

[badpup]

Yes, 1 well placed bomb can ruin Osama's Day completely 

[ReadyAyeReady]

"Depends how many you kill when you bomb them.  It DOES cut down on repeat offenders.  This does, however, have to be conducted with other operations on the political and civil front.  But that doesn't mean you stop bombing.  The three complement each other."

Excellent point...the only problem is, countries like the US and the UK have leaned heavily on the bombing side of things and haven't really made any effort to understand what it is these people are fighting for/against.  I'm in no way condoning terrorism, I'm just saying that the "war on terrorism" would be much more effective if all these so-called "counter-terrorism" experts in the US actually understood the underlying political, economic and social causes of terrorism rather then focusing solely on short term solutions like "target-hardening" and all that fun stuff.  Sure it will make the jobs of the terrorists harder, but will it eliminate them...no it won't.  Sure bombing will eliminate repeat offenders...but as long as the causative factors behind terrorism still remain, then more terrorists will come to take the place of those killed by American bombs.

[van Gemeren]

How about the Ambassador bridge, 25% of all merchandise trade between the United States and Canada crosses the bridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge

or the Trans Canada pipeline, or the power grid. (think back to the big blackout). I could think of many different targets that are not particular to any city. To try to protect every single possible target is impossible. Good intelligence is key, so that the resources that we use for defense are used most effectively.

The current talk here about a multi-pronged offensive is good. I'm going to add that some terorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah act like a quasi-government by offereing social programs to gain support for themselves.

[-Hutch-]

i think toronto. think of what a bomb would do in crowded downtown toronto. i know that when 9\11 happend downtown Toronto was evacuated and was ready for an attack. i think they were really worried about a plane going into the CN tower.