Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Every war on terror has been fought by intelligence and special forces in Europe.
Only USA uses army against terorrists.

Why are you attacking, it seems most terrorist do not come from USA and the problem is getting bigger instead of smaller. Maybe instead of pointing fingers fresh thoughts could bring down this problem. Carol

well stop provoking them then...



see above

lol ok I will. Carol

Maybe there hasn't been extensive enough use of special forces. America seems content to wage a protracted war, risking ever growing casualties. It's a process of attrition but draft in the big guns like Poland's Grom, the SAS and Navy Seals and u will achieve more efficacious outcomes. They need a freer hand to show why they are ELITE forces. Let them do their thing!!

Afghanistan war was conducted by special forces with excellent results.All european countries use special forces against terrorists.Russia managed to get rid by Chcechen terror when special forces were developed.
The terorrists wish large scale operations against them because deployment of army causes victims in population and helps terrorists gain people's sympathy.The more soldiers you send against them,the more popular they become because the less radical solutions seem more and more ineffective in peoples' eyes.
Europe has a long experience with terror.There has been black terror,red terror,anarchist terror,every kind of terror.Many countries like Germany and Italy managed to get rid of terrorists without mobilising army.Can you imagine what would happen if GB used armed divisions against IRA?Ireland would turn into hell.
So the Americans should listen to the Europeans how to handle terror and not listen to Israel which uses military against terrorists with the known results.

I agree with the last posting. The elite forces can engage in operations of precision rather than cowardly Israel who bomb from above, not giving a hoot about innocent civilian casualties/co-lateral damage. Get Mirko Crocop and his Croatian boys in there, they'd snuff out the terrorists, lol

Seanus wrote:

Maybe there hasn't been extensive enough use of special forces. America seems content to wage a protracted war, risking ever growing casualties

This is called 'bleeding oneself dry'...now, I ask, why would the Americans want to bleed themselves dry?...possibly because those 'in charge' have an aim that is opposed to the best interests of America.

Precisely!! I'd love 2 c European countries propose that all their elite forces go to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight. George Bush would have sth 2 say I'm sure. Nobody can seriously say that America is throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the war there.

seein that you havent got a clue i sincerely doubt that you can, even if you understood enouh to want to

Celinski is promulgating the American cause, fine, but just needs to entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Bush isn't the honest, American interest loving person he portrays. When u do that, then it's game on

For what it's worth, read some of my earlier posts, who do you think I was referring to when mentioning we worked specifically with Polish and US special operations troops...
GROM and various SEAL teams, which of course different outfits rotated in on a schedule, as well as *other* units, with Army and intelligence origin. My first 4 months in the war my entire camp was various SF outfits or outfits intended for inserting said units, and of course CSAR elements and that sort of thing.
Much of the problem these days is that now politicians at home are holding everyone on a short leash, and expecting trained SEALS etc. to be policemen or firefighters-which is not the case. Even early in the war, everyone was a bit jealous of the GROM, because of the loose leash Poland kept them on. Our troops had to get intel, then more intel, then politely knock and ask if so-and-so was there (unless they actually KNEW something was going to happen) then only shoot as a last resort, blah blah blah...these are rules meant for POLICE in civilian situations dealing with citizens. Not for soldiers (or sailors as in the case of SEALs) in combat. Polish troops?( or GROM anyway) we were told their only restriction was to "not kill coalition troops". Rumor was that while the news portrayed British troops in Basra and Um Qasr at the beginning of the war, that at least Um Qasr and possibly Basra as well was actually taken by Polish troops, who then kept moving, while British forces became the occupying element. Our troops risk a murder trial if they cannot PROVE that when they returned fire at a house 400 meters away killing one of the occupants, that the person killed was the one actually shooting at them through the window. Knowing these restrictions first hand, perhaps one can understand why I get spooled up when other posts here insinuate we are haphazardly killing civilians over there.
A lot of the fighters are also "new blood". Things calm down for awhile, and new people sneak in, thinking they will show the Iraqis how "Real mujahideen" fight, then they calm down, then Iran sends in new types of IEDs and shoulder launched SAMs...then a troop surge, things calm down, then the media plays a suspected murder/rape scandal involving 5 soldiers as if it is common practice, things get busy again.
The war would have been over and Iraq stable long ago if it were not for non-Iraqi elements stirring things back up again, and honestly, its tiring. For now, it's quiet over there, so people are all over forums such as this one saying how bad it is, until finally something happens that seems to convince them of their beliefs. Every media outlet on earth wants it to go bad, because, hey! big, old, America made out to be the bogey man, or perhaps "Infidels are Dying" makes great headlines. Peace does not sell CNN stock or magazine subscriptions or keep money pouring into various institutions. I suspect the media feeds this war almost as much as any other party (Iran, or whoever).
John P.

Now that's a better posting!! My friend was a sniper in the US Army and he told me just how hard it is to fight under such constraints. I prefer to hear things from the horse's mouth. In what capacity were u there as?

Oh yeah,tell that to the Black watch and 4* commando..........I know its a Polish forum and all that but........and tell it to the 19 year old from 3para who lives round the corner now coz he only has one foot left.

The Polish troops are fearsome and will get things done but wouldn't step in the way of British forces I feel

Hi again,
Credit where credit is due, of course. Just passing on the rumors going around when I was there. While my outfit at the time had worked with different units from the UK (as well as other countries) in the past, in this particular instance it was SEALs (typical work for us) and the GROM in country at the time. Part of how I originally came to PF...GROM saw my name on our detachment roster, assumed I was Polish or at least knew the language (unfortunately I don't) and apparently had one of our officers (who I think, DID speak Polish based on his name at least) bring me over to hang out at for awhile. Awkward. I felt like a fake Polish, even though I'd never heard it spoken in my life for the most part. My grandfather used to speak it fluently (as he should, growing up near Krakow) but was hit by a car before I was born, had to relearn the alphabet, everything. So mostly it was very bad English, with the occasional curse in perhaps Polish, perhaps German...and he lived far away and died when I was 7. I digress. Here I am.

It's never a matter of them getting in the way of British or US forces or even if they or we are "better" either. Thankfully, we are all on the same side. Rumor was simply that GROM went through first, or perhaps reg. Polish army-not sure, my outfit only worked with GROM so we tended to use "the Polish" and "GROM" interchangeably, but I realize they are not the same....and that British forces came after to occupy. Could be just a rumor, or perhaps just Um Qasr I am thinking of-I wasn't involved personally in either of those operations, so I can't say for certainty. Regardless of who did the initial stuff fighting is fighting, and no matter how "softened" a target is because its radars or SAMs or whatever are disabled, incoming bullets still kill.

Speaking of rumors, we had a lot of fun with some of the Army types, when they expressed surprise that we were Navy, we told them a big line of BS that we were "Advance Party" and that an aircraft carrier was going to sail up the Tigris for a forward base....some of the poor guys believed it...also told some folks we were "Navy Band" but I digress.

The unit I served with has since been de-comissioned, (everything these days is political) but there are many secrecy constraints still on what I can say based on what we did, suffice to say it was a helicopter outfit. Your friend might recognize our desert callsign however were I to mention it, depending on what operations he's done, but I would be up SH#& creek without a paddle if I were to say it here. Someday, years from now, perhaps we can talk over some beer. They don't even like us joking about it ON BASE back home unless only around each other. Even the military newspapers such as Air Force times etc. weren't even allowed to mention us-(no, I'm not Air Force) leading to all sorts of rumors about us "snatching people in the night" and what-not-which we enjoyed immensely, because the rumors, while based on the truth, are almost always more exciting...

Just suffice to say I'm nothing special, not a door-kicker, SEAL, or any such thing, just an opinionated American who tends to think about things way harder than he perhaps should. I'm not even an officer, so what I say or do doesn't really matter a hill of beans as far as policy goes... Still, something to think about- when you hear about a raid involving unit X and Y ...which got person Z...it typically involved someone you don't know about and happened a week or two ago by the time the networks find out and give credit to whoever the *think* was involved. At least on our end anyway.

Happy new year over there, I've got to decide how to properly celebrate soon myself...
John P.

That is very strange coming from a Pole living in the comforts of the U.S.A. The Poles do not like Stalin because he allowed Warsaw to be raised to the ground, the Poles do not like Churchill as he sold Poland to Stalin. The Poles never want to be committed themselves but always complain. San Diago of course is very akin to life in Warsaw! I think that America was totally permitted to have a war on terrorism as what happened in New York was outrageous. I do not agree, however, with the reasons for a war in Iraq for so called 'weapons of mass destruction' as I am sure that they never existed and more to the point, so too knew our Tony Blair at the time.

Who would ever have dreamed that Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley would sit at the same table.......this was achieved by years of talks and negotiation, not dropping bombs on civilians..........thank God for people like the late Mo Mowlem and others like her

Ive got it johnp, Your SG1 :),s'ok,I wont talk about the third gate they found just outside karbala ;)
ps,not saying they wernt there(not sg1,GROM.),of course,Um quasr was taken by a real mixed bag,more in the tradition of the old Italian campaign of 43-44, brave lads from many nations,and maybe,just maybe basra was also infiltrated by Grom(i would be surprised if no SF did enter before the main force) but of course,these things cannot really be openly discussed here just yet.I also have a theory but am reluctant to post until I do a bit of sniffing around to see if its already"out there" .

hmmm, i've read a lot of stuff on here but isthatu makes the most sense (1st two pages). how do you fight a war against someone who's already blown himself or herself up? He's right (if it is a he), the better question is asking why these people are so ready to kill themselves either for their beliefs or hatred of others.

Think about it, life must be really, really bad if the only option a man or woman feels they have is to attach some explosives to themselves and say "fcuk it." What oppression do they feel every day that puts them in that position?

as for the special forces stuff-kinda interesting:)

The problem is,on here atleast,is that the "war on terror" is getting mixed up with the "war in Iraq".
Although some would claim the 2 are interlinked(and now,in some ways they are seeing as terrorists have thouraly infiltrated the iraqi "insurgents/resistance" movement)the wider war on terror is no doubt taking place behind closed doors so to speak,behind the scenes on a small scale with inteligence and yes SF units.
Alternativly one could say Iraq has been the perfect way to fight the war on terror,ie,draw all the loonies who want a pop at uncle sam and the "west" to a far away country where a nice little war of attrition can be waged using "our" armed forces as bait.
Others have said on here that it is wrong to use the full might of modern armed forces in iraq to take on the insurgents and quote the Northern Ireland scenario as an example .I would love to jump on this bandwagon and say that ,yes,we in Britain had terrorists for 30 years and NI tore itself asunder but our army didnt fire rockets at houses or drive tanks through peoples bedrooms etc etc,unfortunatly the analogy is disingenious as ,on the whole the Irish terrorists when ambusing a British patrol would maybe be armed with one M16 and ,occasionaly,an RPG.Not armed to the teeth by Iran with the latest firepower and boobytraps.Similarly,if an Irish terrorist was caught by an army roadblock with a bomb in his car he would have likely as not said "ok,fair cop guv'nor" and swiftly surrenderd and spent a few years as a "pow" in the maze.An Iraqi,or for that matter almost anyother "muslim" terrorist would be more likely to blow himself and the roadblock into a million vapourised pieces.

In the USA respect is shown to the Pesident reguardless of who you voted for. We do have loved ones lives at stake here. I don't believe there are any totally honest polititians. I never voted on the Bush ticket as I felt he was trigger happy.



Very easy really, take away insentive. They are told if they do this, some bs about virgins and most important their families will be taken care of.

Lets say payment is from the goverment, hold the goverment doing this responsable and impliment "nation wide" penalties such as total boycot. If the ones pondering blowing themself up see a few family members not only not getting paid off but penilized, they will not see the payoff as such a positive. OK so we cannot hold a dead person responsable but we sure can hold their family that talked them into it responsable. I read of a young man having mixed feelings and it was his own father that was telling him how proud the family would be. I really don't believe it's the virgins that draw them in. In the US court system's I see the one hiring hit men getting larger sentences that the hit men themself. Goverments not following suit will be shown for their true colors (not that it's not already clear where the breading grounds are). Posters glorifying ones that place such a small price on human life is beyond sick. It is when a nation together can say enough and get tough on the criminals that things will get better. USA cannot do this alone and shouldn't have to. Carol

I have to inform you that there is no payment from any muslim government as a legal compensation for people who blew themselves up.

Oh dear Celinski, never heard of the saying, 'respect is earned'? U sounded like a mother trying to defend her son regardless. If u still don't believe me, I can refer u 2 countless websites that'll change ur viewpoint. scholarsfortruth911.org and wanttoknow.info being just 2. Look at the case of the Jersey Girls. Google Fetzer and Judy Wood and listen to what they have to say. One webpage I checked today shows 50 public servants (or former ones) and 100 professors speaking out against the govt's slant on events and calling for a more independent enquiry. The evidence is highly compelling. It's all about money. Silverstein, who had insured WTC7 3 weeks b4 the attack for 3 billion dollars wanted 4.4 billion dollars back after its collapse. What a cretin!! The FBI and CIA were grossly negligent in the years building up to the attacks. How could they have ignored the very warnings they had to listen to? How could they deny meetings even took place with Taliban members when they were documented? How could NORAD have stuffed up so badly? Please read Paul Thompsons Terror Timeline and get some background. He pieces the dots together very nicely

I will check out the sites you sent. Now, what do you think of my thoughts on stopping terror attacks?



My thoughts when posting this were on "terrorist". I was trying to keep off Bush, Sept 11, or USA. I felt we need to look at terrorist as a world issue that need a world solution. I really feel divide and conqure will bennefit all humans. I really cannot see this as a question that should be asked, yet it is. How can anyone say no to a "war on terror". Even if you have not been a victim of such an attack, does terroristic behavior hold any positive for society?

Why should the USA have to fight this battle without support? Why did it come down to attacking Iraq or Afganastan? Terrorist simply cannot be accepted as the norm anywhere by anyone. Maybe if we did not have to ask if there should be a war on terrorist, they would not grow to such a threat to all countries. Maybe it's just me, but this is how I feel. Carol

Because Bush created the mess by meddling, setting up the Taliban and cutting deals with people who funded terrorist groups, i.e the Saudis and Pakistanis. The CIA and FBI have failed ur country. Guess who George Bush snr was with the day b4 9/11? Bin Laden's bro. The WMD's still haven't been found and Saddam was said to be hostile to Al Qaeda. Bush made the links that he didn't have the right to make. Yeah, Saddam was evil but he should've been taken out long b4. He can't kill any more but u r still in Iraq. It's widely known that America needs to control those oilfields. Afghanistan, well, Russia will tell u just how lucrative business can be there. The positioning of the pipeline running through Afghanistan to Turkmenistan was a great chance for Bush, such an opportunist. An Argentinian firm was shown to have more experience to get that contract but the heavy hand ruled and Bush got his way. Need I continue? Bush doesn't even know who he's targetting half the time.

well as southern alluded to, i am also not aware of any governments handing out incentives for people blowing themselves up(well not with the public's knowledge anyhow;). Nonetheless I think you missed the point of the quote i used from isathu i.e. these people are already deceased, you can't say with any certainty whatsoever who talked or convinced a suicide bomber to be one after the fact.

Your idea also (conveniently) avoids the issue of how crap one's perspective on a situation (whether it be there personal experience or if they sympathize with a group) has to be for blowing oneself up to actually be an option.

Secondly your arguement seems to stem from the perspective that u.s. led agendas are "right" and "others" should be prosecuted for terrorism.
^or you'd get the family members copying the martyr's actions, i'm going to infer mine a more probable likelihood than yours.

However, how badly could you effectively punish a woman for the violence of her adult son or daughter? And what worse could be done to her than what kind of oppression she may already be facing (minus at least one child)? Has it ever entered your mind that u.s. led initiatives and policies are oppressing enough people that terror is their only way to fight oppression?


It seems that terrorists are simply a group of people doing what government supported militaries have been doing for years- using violence as an ends to a means.
For the last time, how again do you get tough on the deceased?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that it's been the politicians who are the real criminals, so why not go after the oppressive policy makers first?

How about a War on Oppression? Any Reasonable and honest person has to support that one. How about it?

The whole thing with the hijackers was another joke. Some of them that allegedly perpetrated the crimes have emerged alive and well back in the Middle East. How on earth did Atta's passport emerge outside the Twin Towers? If the fireballs were as strong as the govt led everyone to believe, it would've been incinerated. Licenses were given to Arabian pilots b4 they proved both their linguistic and flying competences. Who is Bush going after now? It can't be Bin Laden as he isn't concerned with him. Saddam is dead. An attack on Iran isn't on the cards, YET!! Al Qaeda? Other countries have given Bush the chance to catch them but he appears uninterested. The reality is that he claims to be aiming for stability in the region but instability suits his plans better.

Yes,just as respect was always shown for Stalin or Mao ,people in Britain have always found this puzzling,you guys claim the lead in "democracy" yet treat your often corrupt leaders,kennedy,nixon etc as saints for as long as they are in office.

What the heck,this isnt "A wonderfull life" a soldier doesnt get his angel wings everytime someone calls Bush a muppet.....

Right,OK,er,how many of them do you think actually believe in the 72 virgins thing?What they do believe in most cases is that what they are doing is the only way to fight the occupiers be those IDF or USMC. Yes,in some cases in Palastine the families will recieve a small payment from hamas or whoever but the loss of an adult son in a ghetto econamy is impossible to repay .

What govt? The iraq govt that Uncle sam put in place?no love,govts dont pay terrorists,unless your talking funding the contras and mujahadeen but er that was ur govt.

So,what do you suggest? Throwing woen and children into concentration camps,another guantanamo ?That is sick.

Yes,as are hollywood movies saluting killers of civilians like Memphis Belle or just gloryfying warfare like 50% of US films.

Please do,you were founded by a revoloution afteral.

?????????do you know the meaning of this phrase at all ? Im guessing you havnt a copy of Sun Tsu lying about.......

and the rest of the forum now says fek u,we have soldiers dying in the same shite holes you do.
oh,I give up........................

against terror yes, against all arabs no. as to personalities of course not by George Bush.