Afghanistan

[White Doors]

Godspeed army guy

[Army Guy]

This is one reason why more transparency in government is needed.

Some things are not meant for public consumption, such national security, etc etc...but there could be more transparency i agree...

Vision without Action is a daydream. Action without Vision is a nightmare.

Not sure what comment your reffering , i'm assuming it was how one citizen could spark our government into action....maybe they should be asking the professor on tips....

By this, we as a population cannot make an informed choice, because for the most part, the real gritty facts are not divulged to us.

I do place most of the blame on the government for keeping us in the dark, but there is plenty of places to get reliable info from...ask any mother with a son now in Afgan, they have more info than our intel cells , who is where, what they are doing, the whole nine yards...all from the inter net, and phone....So really there is little excuse for not keeping informed, and if your vocal , or truely believe in your postion then you should be well informed....

I had recently talked to an old friend who did a tour in Afghanistan. I asked him if he had killed anyone. Without hesitation, he said yes. He told me he was a tool of the government and has a clean concious about what he has done. I really did not inquire if the supported the mission, he got out because he wanted to stay home with his wife and two daughters

Just a question, why is that the number one question people want to know...is it the cool factor, would you treat them any differently if they had or had not....anyways just curious ....I'm glad he has a clear concious, most do, but that still does not mean he's not having problems with dealing with it....be careful when aproaching this type of topic in the future, sometimes it can trigger unwanted responses...even from old friends....Family is number one, for sure....me and my wife have an agreement as soon as she had enough of my deployments i'd get out and do something else....behind every good soldier, is an excellent wife.......

[myata]

You make it sound like a useless piece of paper, but in fact it is a written record of the laws that have been passed by vote. it gives the government thier basic guide lines in which to govern, . It outlines to every citizen all of thier basic rights and thier limits....Much more than a piece of paper....It's the operators manual for the country if you will...and while you can live without one, you still need to referance it once and awhile.

Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own in 1963.

That's good, thanks for the information, I didn't know that. So, unless it was another rosy attempt to graft western ideas into the local culture with little effect, the population must be well versed in the notions of democracy, law and order. When, what exactly are we doing there (militarily - I fully support development assistance)?

They have their democratic government, it has 60,000 strong army, x,000 police and security service. All against a meagre handful of insurgents who enjoy no popular support (see more below).

Hilter and Stalin also had stable governments....Dictators that rule with absolute fear normal do have stable governments, does'nt it mean that it is a good thing...

I don't believe it's a good thing; I'm saying that making a government for them could be as bad, and shouldn't be our business, period. I already commented on the question of rights (basic rights that is - we can come up with all kinds of "rights" claims to justify our interference).

How do you know it was the wrong mission, your still learning about it, you still do not have all the facts so how can you have already decided "it's the wrong decision"

Because:

- previous attemps of installing foreign ideology almost never worked;

- from our everyday life we all know that people cannot be made to change their minds by force; they can be made to obey by force; or they can change their minds freely; it's a mutually exclusive dilemma. By applying our force there, no matter what motivation, we aren't letting them make a choice they would have made otherwise. Perhaps we fear that that choice may not be to our liking; like Hamas in Palestine; or Islamic opposition in Egypt; we seem to have no qualms about ignoring "democratic will of people" when it doesn't suit our ends.

- finally, because of track record; six years and counting of strong military involvement failed to achieve serious improvement in security situation; e.g Reuters now reports Taleban advances near Kabul; and to preempt your standard argument, the situation has nothing to do with Germany or Japan after WWII, because according to your own statements we're supposed to be in a friendly environment, with majority of population in full support of our mission. And of course Bosnia and Cyprus examples have no slightest relevance because we simply have no combat missions there.

I mention this not to demean anyone, but rather to place credit where credit is due. This mssion was suppose to be a Canadian one, which meant all of us, have a role to play, like it or not we still have a role until our government decides we are finished....and for years now that has not been happening....

Yes that's the only thing I'm saying. The government should decide that the (combat) mission is finished. It was a mistake to take part in it in the first place, and it'd be even greater mistake to persist. Cerainly it's not for the lack of effort from soldiers that it does not seem to working. I've never said it was.

Really, Is that why they passed a UN resolution on the 12 Sept, number 1368(2001)(below) The US did not start air operations until 7 Oct 2001, and a limited ground presence was'nt until 22 Oct 2001....so the UN was not covering it's tracks or the US after the fact....or creating some sort of legitimate excuse for this whole issue....It is you that are creating false facts....

OK, thanks for the facts. One can argue to death if it gave them the ticket for a full blown invasion, and I'm not impressed with UN double talk one bit. I think very often (maybe more often than not) it's a cause for more problems than any solution.

Thats all your doing, on one hand you say we should be helping, just not fighting because we don't know whom it is we should be fighting...we can't build because we don't know what they want....good pionts, all of them, but give those in charge some credit, they are Afgan's and they know whom the bad guys are,

But how do you know that them, themselves are on the good side? Most importantly, will you know if/when they start turning bad? That you aren't messing in the internal scores and conflicts? Tribes, old scores... There's no answer, other than the simple one: we should not be using force in other's conflicts. Information, education, humanitarian assistance, all fine, but direct military involvement should be out of question.

The same way clifford olson, created fear and panick, or allen leger, you don't have to vist every home or every village, they kill randomly leave very public and gruesome messages....word of mouth travels fast, with the tale growing bigger with every passage....History is full of millions of examples how fear can control large numbers of people...

We'll have to take things to more detail, I'm sorry. 2,000 of bandints in the whole country would be like 200 per province (unstable one). That's about 10 gangs per province (I simply can't see how smaller gangs could do anything with presumably hostile population which is armed and versed in the use of arms). It'd be very likely less than we have here in Canada, and it's simply unbelievable that six years of serious combat with hugely superior forces failed to make any progress. That is, if we continue to insist that Taleban enjoys little popular support...

Forever is a long time but over atleast a 25 year period...in one form or another....It's not honourable to leave someone high and dry, or while still in thier hour of need....

And how would they know that they aren't in the need anymore? With you always conveniently behind (or even in front) of them, fetching their chestnuts from fire..

This is not something that is new, or Canada has not been exposed to, check our history and how long a typical peacekeeping mission is...

Right, peacekeeping. That's a big difference isn't it? With peacekeeping, we aren't taking sides.

.there is no drive thru lane in nation building or peacekeeping....if we as a nation can not afford the time or money to do the job then we have no right in pretending we do....and we should stick our head back up are arses, and call it a day....

First of all, they, nation building vs peacekeeping, are two largely different things. I never objected to the latter; as to the former, I'm not sure it even exists; as a practical concept, that is, rather than an illusion (or, more likely, a delusion).

Edited August 16, 2008 by myata

[Army Guy]

That's good, thanks for the information, I didn't know that. So, unless it was another rosy attempt to graft western ideas into the local culture with little effect, the population must be well versed in the notions of democracy, law and order. When, what exactly are we doing there (militarily - I fully support development assistance)?

They have their democratic government, it has 60,000 strong army, x,000 police and security service. All against a meagre handful of insurgents who enjoy no popular support (see more below).

You do know that there are civilian diplomates from numerous countries acting as mentors, and advisors, but that is the limit of thier roles, all the decisions are made by the Afgan parliment, and not all thier policies, directives are well like by the west...piont being is they are Afgan policies,and NATO is abiding by them...

Still having a hard time wrapping your head around the numbers....The Taliban or for that matter any terrorist org have the upper hand because they can fad in and out of afgan at will, they pick the time and place to attack, every attack is planned to have maxium impact on the civilian population and the western media..Unless a country can have a huge presence on every street corner, they the terrorist will always have the upper hand, Even Russia had some problems with terror, and thier country was far more restrictive than any western country could hope to be...

China another example having problems with its olympic security, and it has far more troops in just one city....

- finally, because of track record; six years and counting of strong military involvement failed to achieve serious improvement in security situation; e.g Reuters now reports Taleban advances near Kabul; and to preempt your standard argument, the situation has nothing to do with Germany or Japan after WWII, because according to your own statements we're supposed to be in a friendly environment, with majority of population in full support of our mission. And of course Bosnia and Cyprus examples have no slightest relevance because we simply have no combat missions there.

There is not a strong Military presence in Afgan, you've read the reports NATO would need to double it's current numbers to have a strong military presence there....But as the mission is not popular with the NATO countries this is not going to happen....it is also hampering efforts in regards getting the right equipment and funding needed to actually make a difference....The entire country is not in conflict, the north and west rarely in the media because it is relatively peaceful....

As for Bosina and Cyprus, check into these missions histories and tell me there was no combat....The Canadian Airbourne did thier last Combat jump in Cyprus, and 7 of thier soldiers paid the ultimate price, medak pocket another example......Peacekeeping has another myth attached to it, that it was full of handing out teddy bears and candy, but those mission never start out that way, hence why it's done with machine guns and armoured vehs....

OK, thanks for the facts. One can argue to death if it gave them the ticket for a full blown invasion, and I'm not impressed with UN double talk one bit. I think very often (maybe more often than not) it's a cause for more problems than any solution.

I agree the UN is a waste of air and space.

[jbg]

Oh yes another American against the war in Afghanistan. But I doubt you are to the left of your fellow citizen.

I don't think I will read quotes from you suggesting US foreign policy is soaked in blood. Regardless, I do recognise your comments to Army Guy as being respectful.

Actually one of my first bulletin board posts anywhere went as follows:

The history of the English-speakng people is one of warfare, oppression and slavery. From the very first days, the English kings formed a bogus "Parliament" to align the rich people against the poor, and oppress the proleteriat working class. They of course pioneered the enslavement of the African race, and unleashed smallpox-soaked blankets to obliterate Australian Aborigines and First Nations, and destroy their civilizations.

The United States took the slaughter to new heights. Their formation was dead-aimed wrecking the African slaves and destroying whatever protection the English Crown gave them. US History is one long war. Their anthem is a war song. In 2000 they put a chimp in control of the country, who when berserk arranged for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. His thirst for blook unsatisfied, this Dracula President then feasted on the innocent, peaceloving blood of Muslims, destroying great civilizations in Kabul and Baghdad.

Noam Chomsky does not go far enough. The US is the worst nation ever in world history.

[Army Guy]

The history of the English-speakng people is one of warfare, oppression and slavery. From the very first days, the English kings formed a bogus "Parliament" to align the rich people against the poor, and oppress the proleteriat working class. They of course pioneered the enslavement of the African race, and unleashed smallpox-soaked blankets to obliterate Australian Aborigines and First Nations, and destroy their civilizations.

The United States took the slaughter to new heights. Their formation was dead-aimed wrecking the African slaves and destroying whatever protection the English Crown gave them. US History is one long war. Their anthem is a war song. In 2000 they put a chimp in control of the country, who when berserk arranged for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. His thirst for blook unsatisfied, this Dracula President then feasted on the innocent, peaceloving blood of Muslims, destroying great civilizations in Kabul and Baghdad.

Noam Chomsky does not go far enough. The US is the worst nation ever in world history.

WOW, thats a pretty one sided opinion. But then again you could say that about any language could you not, Russian, Chinese, Japanse, German, French, Italian, and the list goes on, thier history is full of conflict, warfare, oppression, and yes Slavery...

And while the US, Britian, Canada and the rest of english bastards do not come out of all this smelling like roses, i'm sure that they are far from winning the crown of being the worst nation in history, and while as bad as giving out small-pox blankets sounds, it does not compare to the exicution of millions of jews be it from bullets to gas, or stalins rampage that cost well over 20 million souls....

I almost chocked when i read your comment on the peace loving muslims of great cilvilzations in Kabul, and Baghdad. only because i assumed that you were refering to the Taliban and Sadam's merry gangbangers we call insurgents...one could only hope i was wrong.

[myata]

Still having a hard time wrapping your head around the numbers....The Taliban or for that matter any terrorist org have the upper hand because they can fad in and out of afgan at will, they pick the time and place to attack, every attack is planned to have maxium impact on the civilian population and the western media..Unless a country can have a huge presence on every street corner, they the terrorist will always have the upper hand,

OK, the main issue, again, as so many times before, seems to come down to terminology: Taleban - who are they? Evil alien "terrorists"? Or representatives of that part of local population, that wants to be left alone and live by their customs and traditions, whatever they are? And assuming we can prove them being "terrorists", whatever interpretation of the word we use, would it still give us moral right to go into another land and fight them there?

Taleban near Kabul: BBC

Edited August 19, 2008 by myata

[Argus]

....for example....A professor in Ottawa accuses our troops of mishandling POW's and within days planes fill the Afgan tarmac, with MP's of all shapes and sizes, announcing WE are here to investagate the POW abuses, although proven false, it got a major reaction from the canadian people

It got NO reaction from the Canadian people. It got a frenzied reaction from the national media, but that's to be expected. The national media are all graduates of various left-wing schools of journalism where Marx is required reading and reflexive anti-americanism and anti-militarism are de rigeur.

[Argus]

By this, we as a population cannot make an informed choice, because for the most part, the real gritty facts are not divulged to us.

Oh bullshit. Most people are ignorant about the war in the same way as they're ignorant about domestic and economic issues - because they're too busy to bother reading the newspapers or watching the news. They catch little bits and pieces of news on their radio stations in the morning now and then.

The mission is pretty damned clear to anyone who's bothered to take even the slightest effort to follow it.

[Argus]

- finally, because of track record; six years and counting of strong military involvement failed to achieve serious improvement in security situation;

Nation building takes a while, especially when other nations are playing games and trying to induce instability. But look at it this way; Afghanistan and Iraq are collection points for all the world's crazy Islamic wackos. If they didn't have those places to go to they'd be blowing themselves up in New York and London instead - or maybe Toronto.

Unfortunately, the main breeding grounds for wackos - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, continue to produce them at a heady pace.

[Argus]

Actually one of my first bulletin board posts anywhere went as follows:

The history of the English-speakng people is one of warfare, oppression and slavery. From the very first days, the English kings formed a bogus "Parliament" to align the rich people against the poor, and oppress the proleteriat working class. They of course pioneered the enslavement of the African race, and unleashed smallpox-soaked blankets to obliterate Australian Aborigines and First Nations, and destroy their civilizations.

The United States took the slaughter to new heights. Their formation was dead-aimed wrecking the African slaves and destroying whatever protection the English Crown gave them. US History is one long war. Their anthem is a war song. In 2000 they put a chimp in control of the country, who when berserk arranged for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. His thirst for blook unsatisfied, this Dracula President then feasted on the innocent, peaceloving blood of Muslims, destroying great civilizations in Kabul and Baghdad.

Noam Chomsky does not go far enough. The US is the worst nation ever in world history.

The internet is full of uneducated idiots passionately expelling the gaseous contents of their colon and calling it wisdom. What was the name of the genius who authored this?

Edited August 19, 2008 by Argus

[jdobbin]

The mission is pretty damned clear to anyone who's bothered to take even the slightest effort to follow it.

But can anything change from us being there long term? I think the answer to that is unclear.

We can beat the Taliban a straight fight but can they be fully eradicated as they hide in Pakistan? I guess we'll have to ask the French how they feel about that.

Edited August 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

But can anything change from us being there long term? I think the answer to that is unclear.

We can beat the Taliban a straight fight but can they be fully eradicated as they hide in Pakistan? I guess we'll have to ask the French how they feel about that.

The French will probably suggest we surrender - like Dion and the Liberals have advocated.

[M.Dancer]

The French will probably suggest we surrender - like Dion and the Liberals have advocated.

Ummm...no.

"The best way of remaining faithful to your comrades is to continue the work, to lift your heads, to be professional," Sarkozy told French troops at a base on the outskirts of Kabul. "I don't have any doubt about that. We have to be here."

Sarkozy sent an extra 700 troops to Afghanistan this year, responding to U.S. pleas for its NATO allies to do more to help check the resurgent Taliban. That brought the number of French troops in Afghanistan to about 2,600.

Sarkozy said the work the troops were doing was vital.

"A part of the world's freedom is at stake here. This is where the fight against terrorism is being waged," he said. "We are not here against the Afghans. We are with the Afghans so as not to leave them alone in the face of barbarism."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKSP32426820080820

If Dion had Sarkozy balls, Dion might have a chance of being PM, but he doesn't so he won't.

[Argus]

Ummm...no.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKSP32426820080820

If Dion had Sarkozy balls, Dion might have a chance of being PM, but he doesn't so he won't.

We'll see how long Sarkozy can hold out. Three quarters of his people are already frantically waving white flags.

[jdobbin]

The French will probably suggest we surrender - like Dion and the Liberals have advocated.

I don't see the French president doing that.

Nor have the Liberals advocated anything except a deadline for our involvement. A blank check doesn't serve the Afghan since it gives them little incentive to actually take care of their own affairs.

Edited August 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[Army Guy]

OK, the main issue, again, as so many times before, seems to come down to terminology: Taleban - who are they? Evil alien "terrorists"? Or representatives of that part of local population, that wants to be left alone and live by their customs and traditions, whatever they are? And assuming we can prove them being "terrorists", whatever interpretation of the word we use, would it still give us moral right to go into another land and fight them there?

The Taliban , who are they, it would be a conservative est that only 60 % of those active in taliban are Afgans, the remaining 40% are muslims from across the muslim world, yes you'll find a few Canadians, Americans, Europeons,but mostly pakistanis making up this gang of criminals...

And yes they are evil alien beasts who want to control the masses thru fear and terror, they would not be happy with just doing it to themselfs they want control ,control over the entire country, the want the freedom to control others thru fear and force...nothing more....

Just look at thier tactics, and how they apply them, Stripping a man of all his skin with a dull knife takes hours, and hours to accomplish....it's sole goal was for the village to hear this man beg for them to stop, then beg them to end his life...instead they left him in the morning sun to bake and die a slow death....this is not an isolated incident, and has been done before....what drives a man or a group of men to do things this unimaginable his customs and traditions...show me one Muslim custom and tradition such as this....is he fighting for what he believes to be right....how does this act accomplish any of that....Asumming we can prove they are terrorists....give me a break...if it smells and tastes and feels like shit, it is shit....

He's doing it because he likes it, he wants control, over everything including life it self....

Do we have a right to answer a plea for help, a plea to help stop this kind of behavior....i say YES....Yes we do, A G-8 nation with all the responsiabilities YES, a Nation with so much to offer again a Yes....a chance to make a difference in the lives of millions....

So instead of asking do we have a moral right to help....We should be asking ourselfs do we have a right to watch this happen and do nothing, only to peer thru the glass every night on the news as thousands pay with thier lifes....so a few thousand can keep thier twisted sense of reality ....And while some will say yes , we should not interfer....Our government has stood up and said "we will help" we can not sit on our asses and watch....And while our government has not conducted a perfect mission, it is the majority that is pouting about this and that hampering the mission, in the end it is the afgan people who suffer...

[Army Guy]

Noe have the Liberals advocated anything except a deadline for our involvement. A blank check doesn't serve the Afghan since it gives them little incentive to actually take care of their own affairs.

No it does not, however, we can't leave half way thru the job...and we don't leave when it gets a little tough ...We don't except that behavoir in our day to day lifes...Why should we now say it's OK for our nation to do that....

[Smallc]

No it does not, however, we can't leave half way thru the job...and we don't leave when it gets a little tough ...We don't except that behavoir in our day to day lifes...Why should we now say it's OK for our nation to do that....

I am in favour of us staying in some capacity until the job is done. When it comes to the combat role though, we have one our part. When 2011 comes around we will have really done our part. Its time for someone else to do the heavy lifting. Its time to let the CF rest.

[M.Dancer]

We'll see how long Sarkozy can hold out. Three quarters of his people are already frantically waving white flags.

Some more French reactions....

-----------------

French press question Afghan role

By Lucy Gill

BBC Monitoring

The French press is united in expressing sorrow over the deaths of 10 French soldiers in an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan.

Some commentators do not believe France should be in Afghanistan

But while some commentators express strong support for the French mission, others question Nato's strategy and criticise President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to increase France's troop deployment.

Laurent Joffrin in the left-leaning Liberation daily wrote that the "courageous sacrifice" of the soldiers was "the incarnation of military service and greatness".

Calling the war in Afghanistan "a tragic necessity", Mr Joffrin warned that "the worst solution obviously would be retreat".

Luc de Barochez in the centre-right Le Figaro agreed, saying that while the worsening of the situation in Afghanistan is alarming "it should not make us forget the stakes in this conflict, that are as high for Europe as they are for the United States".

However he also asked whether, even "if the aims are just, are the tactics being used to achieve them correct?" He concluded that Nato's 70,000 men "is not a lot in an immense country with poor communications. Experience has shown, however, that it is difficult to do more."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7572502.stm

Edited August 20, 2008 by M.Dancer

[madmax]

I am in favour of us staying in some capacity until the job is done. When it comes to the combat role though, we have one our part. When 2011 comes around we will have really done our part. Its time for someone else to do the heavy lifting. Its time to let the CF rest.

The Lifting is heavy because the US blew this from the get go. Too focused on Iraq to be concerned about Afghanistan. Too many incompetents in the White House, a lack of courage from Colin Powell who knew better but was to cowardly to speak the real truth. He became a mouthpiece of the administration. So, here we are 10 years later come 2011 and the country will be the same/worse then when we first arrived. THose precious early months and first two years were critical to success. We can run around with a few hundred men playing hunt and seek till the cows come home and Afghanistan will be no safer.

The CF requires withdrawl or a plan for successful stablization and security. I don't see it coming soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Lifting is heavy because the US blew this from the get go. Too focused on Iraq to be concerned about Afghanistan. Too many incompetents in the White House, a lack of courage from Colin Powell who knew better but was to cowardly to speak the real truth. He became a mouthpiece of the administration.

Oh great...Canada didn't even show up in numbers until early 2002, and then it was a very small number! The "get go" was in 2001...where was Canada's tactical air, armor, or artillery? Those brave souls that did show needed to hitch a ride, but had jungle cammies! (No fault of their own...must be the idiots in Ottawa.)

So, here we are 10 years later come 2011 and the country will be the same/worse then when we first arrived. THose precious early months and first two years were critical to success. We can run around with a few hundred men playing hunt and seek till the cows come home and Afghanistan will be no safer.

Those precious months saw far fewer Canadians compared to Americans.....just check the body count. Check the early ISAF missions compared to now. By your own admission, you are still running around with hundreds instead of many thousands....and your other NATO patners will let you do it. But at least now it is find, engage, and kill the Taliban.

The CF requires withdrawl or a plan for successful stablization and security. I don't see it coming soon.

Sounds like your expectations are dependent on the Americans...again. How typical.

[Topaz]

Oh great...Canada didn't even show up in numbers until early 2002, and then it was a very small number! The "get go" was in 2001...where was Canada's tactical air, armor, or artillery? Those brave souls that did show needed to hitch a ride, but had jungle cammies! (No fault of their own...must be the idiots in Ottawa.)

Those precious months saw far fewer Canadians compared to Americans.....just check the body count. Check the early ISAF missions compared to now. By your own admission, you are still running around with hundreds instead of many thousands....and your other NATO patners will let you do it. But at least now it is find, engage, and kill the Taliban.

Sounds like your expectations are dependent on the Americans...again. How typical.

Come on BC, of course there were more US military than Canadian and probably always will be that way because the US puts more importance on their military than their people`s needs! Bush was out of Afg. too soon and went into Iraq were he has no business going! After Nam, I hoped there would be more peace in the world but the US doesnt seem to want peace, afterall, there no money in it and why have a military if you dont use them???? BTW, IF Canada was attacked the US would come to help only for the reason to protect ITSELF from invasion!

[Isomorphic]

Nation building takes a while, especially when other nations are playing games and trying to induce instability. But look at it this way; Afghanistan and Iraq are collection points for all the world's crazy Islamic wackos. If they didn't have those places to go to they'd be blowing themselves up in New York and London instead - or maybe Toronto.

Unfortunately, the main breeding grounds for wackos - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, continue to produce them at a heady pace.

Bold is mine. How can you make that claim without going by the assumption that they ("wackos") want to attack us because of our general lifestyle (which is, so obviously, untrue)?

Edited August 20, 2008 by Isomorphic

[M.Dancer]

Bold is mine. How can you make that claim without going by the assumption that they ("wackos") want to attack us because of our general lifestyle (which is, so obviously, untrue)?

I would say it is a relatively safe assumption. Just look at a sampling of Islamic terrorist attacks against Western targets before the liberation of Afghanistan to 1993

The first WTC bombing

The USS Cole

US Emabassy in Kenya

Empire State Building Sniper

Thgen Egyptian Letter Bomb Campaign

Paris Subway Bombing

Assignation of the Archbishop of Oran

Khobar Towers Bombing

Air France Hijacking

They were random and scattered. Now we have given them a goal and made far easier for us to kill them. All in all it's a Martha Stewart scenario.