This is one of the major points discussed in an article I read recently. With the nature of terrorism as it is, i.e. not being able to be defined as a particular nation, fighting them the way the u.s. govt is currently will cause more problems.

Unfortunately, people like Daniel are trained in the militaristic ways of solving problems, and have difficulty seeing when those methods are not proper for a given scenario.

I used to sit next to someone from a Middle Eastern background back when all this started. It seemed obivious to the 2 of us that when you drop bombs into civilian areas, there is a high probability that you've turned the surviors into terrorists.

I read an interview with a reporter who was working with a division of the military that was fighting in the big battle at Faluja. He discussed how the military kicked as many civilians out as possible before launching their offensive. The offensive was successful at eliminating a lot of the group holed up in Faluja. But in the process the entire town was decimated. An the civilians were not allowed back in to collect what belongings of theirs remained for some time. It would seem to me that some of those civilians could now easily become terrorists.


>>I don't want to get into this arena;-) but IMHO if the US could stand up before terrorists supported by nations such as the Netherlands (or the French for that matter) it would make the job that much harder for those who try to incite terrorism against the US. JHMO. ;-)
>
>I agree, but if you stand up, you'd better have a plan, other than just invade a country and not thinking about the consequences (see the interview in the thread "The end of iraq"). Violence will seduce more violence. There are better and more effective ways of dealing with the issue.
>
>Afghanistan was understandable. Iraq is a different matter.
>
>Walter,