Along with your misplaced goofiness about oranges, you don't know much about what you're talking about .. and frankly, you never do.
NEWSFLASH: Terrorism IS a tactic and the "war on terrorism" is a hoax .. so says the Rand Corporation .. who in case you aren't familiar with, is a leading adviser to the United States military. They have concluded that terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals not holy warriors
and that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism .. thus, you cannot murder a tactic.
It is also not surprising that the Rand Corporation further suggests that a second aspect of a counterterrorism effort would minimize the use of US military force. It further concludes that using the term ‘war on terror’ suggest that there is a battlefield solution. Terrorist should be perceived as criminals not as warriors. Nearly every US ally, including the UK and Australia, has stopped using the term ‘war on terror’ and replaced it with the term ‘counterterrorism’.
That isn't just goofy, it's downright Hee-Haw stupid and demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. It appears that you've never heard of the ISI or Pakistan's deal with so-called terrorists. You quite obviously have no clue of the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or Pakistan and India. You have no clue about the history and politics of the tribal areas.
The reality is that almost seven years after September 11 and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, both counter-terrorism on the Pakistan border and the war in Afghanistan are going backwards. More foreign fighters are finding their way to Pakistan; there has been a 40 per cent rise in rebel activity on the Afghanistan side of the border since Pakistan adopted its policy of coddling, rather than combating the FATA-based militants; and, by many accounts, the ISI has a tighter grip on power in Islamabad than ever before
That's not my argument at all. Getting the US deeper involved in Afghanistan is a stupid fuclking idea all by itself, irrespective of the stupid fucking idea of invading Iraq. I started this thread because Obama promised to end "the mindset that took us into Iraq" .. but he's following the exact same course that will produce the same consequences.
Your ridiculous "go git 'em" cowboy stupid notion about murdering a tactic has produced NOTHING that suggests the US is any safer from "terrorists." We've spent a shitload of US taxpayer money, including pouring billions into Afghanistan, our military suffers, oil costs spikes .. and we're not one damn iota safer.
The point about North Korea wasn't that Kim is a terrorist .. althoiugh many would call him that .. the point is that talking and diplomacy often works .. which would indeed be news to anyone, like yourself, who doesn't understand the limits of military power.
I could go on .. but you are not very learned on the issue.
Regurgitated Isalmophobia paranoia is a poor substitute for knowledge.
The only individual without a fucking clue what they are talking about is you.
You cannot even understand the fundamental difference between working with the head of a nation state, and working with a terrorist organization. For that matter, you don't even know what a terrorist is. Kim is NOT a terrorist, nor has he ever been a terrorist, nor has he ever resorted to terrorist tactics. He is a megalomaniacal despot, but not a terrorist.
Diplomacy can, and quite often does, work when dealing with the head of a nation state - even despotic ones. Diplomacy does not work when dealng with terrorist organizations such as OBL heads because the mandates of such organizations are completely unacceptable to our society, and their mandate allows no compromise on their part. Are you even minimally aware of the mandates of Al Queda?
And of course, then you have to come out with the accusation of generalized Islamophobia. Most people are fully cognizant of the differences between the general religion of Islam, and the ideology of radical Islamic extremists as those involved with Al Queda. There is no reason to fear the motivation of most followers of Islam. There IS reason to fear the motivations of radical Islamic terrorists. They themselves have openly declared their mandate, and killing ay who do not join them is part of that mandate.
But typical of assholes who cannot actually defend their stance, you resprt to lies and distortions about the stance of the opposition, then ridicule your lies as if you were counterpointing the real argument. Either that or you do not understand that the radical Islam fundamentalism of Al Queda is a far cry from the general religion of Islam. Which is it? Do you lack the minimal comprehension to separate Islam the religion from radical extremists, or did you choose to lie about it when trying to label my (and most others who have a clue) stance on Al Queda as a phobia against all Islam?
As for "murdering a tactic" that has already been explained, but obviously went way over your head. I don't think it can be explained without using words with more than one syllable, so getting any understanding from you on the concept is unlikely. But once more: we are not fighting a TACTIC. We are fighting a GROUP of subhuman assholes who USE the tactic. And to fight those who USE the tactic, we are denying them (as much as possible) one of the primary requirements (that being sanctuary) from those who use the tactic of terrorism. And by your own admission,
"there has been a 40 per cent rise in rebel activity on the Afghanistan side of the border since Pakistan adopted its policy of coddling, rather than combating the FATA-based militants" So terrorism RISES after Pakistan stops killing them and starts coddling them. What a fucking surprise that things backslide when they are not being hunted and killed any more. It obviously means that fighting them does no good. (but wait, it was not until Pakistan STOPPED hunting them down that they started to bounce back....) Clear enough? (Probably not.)
How about this:
They bad guys.
They do bad things.
Others help bad guys do bad things.
We stop others helping bad guys so bad guys can't do as many bad things.
Allies help battle bad guys for while, then stop.
Bad guys gain in power when allies stop fighting them.
Is that more clear?
