TERRORISM, WIN, LOSE OR DRAW? (No Poll)

[Great-Kazoo]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a moderator or someone with a vested (monetary interest) In the ar-15.co web site. I am also not a person who has connections or ever been involved with military intelligence or other .gov agency's.
I'm just an ordinary guy with an opinion (SURPRISE) who is curious what you all think about terrorism / ISLAMIST.
LET'S not get side tracked with buzz words like Domestic Terrorist. I would like this topic to be about Islam, Islamist, ONLY. If we cannot keep it civil, reduced to name calling, bitch slapping and general shenanigans. I will have the mods shut it down.


Now the question is Can America win the fight against Islamist, jihadist terrorist?

IMO we will likely end up in a draw OR as much as it pains me, lose in the long run against said Terrorist.

We can put blame on any administration one wants All have been complacent (one way or another) when dealing with Radical Islam / Terrorist. When you have a faction of government believe captured fighters should be tried in a US court / civilians. Rather than military court, our enemies know they have won.

When you have .gov representatives publicly announce terrorism is but a small section of Islam, they've won.

When you have a secularist portion of society, who castigate, condemn Christians and Jews , but Embrace Islam / Muslims as friends, we've lost.

We as a country do not have the stomach / fortitude to do what islamist / terrorist do, are trained to do and believe beyond a doubt, their way is a righteous and justified one.

Find me 1 thousand people (U.S citizens) who would strap on a vest or drive a vehicle loaded with explosives, in to a market place packed with civilians. I'm sure there are a fair amount of Tim McVeighs out there, but doubt we'd get enough to do it daily, for years on end. Or who truly believe that kind of violence is the answer to wiping out the opposition.

Another reason Islamist / Terrorist may win, population. Their desire to eradicate the Infidels off the face of the earth, has given them a drive like no other. One family member dies in pursuit of Allah's approval , the blood line is more than willing to carry on.
Even when it comes to sectarian violence, they unite against the infidel.

I apologize in advance for the scattered train of thought. However i've rewritten this numerous times, this was the shortest version i could come up with.
Feel free to add on one way or another.

[beast556]

Un winnable war.

[merl]

No I don't think so and cynically I don't think we're intended to. It is a great excuse to create a surveillance state.

Their leaders whip people up to hate us as a distraction from the crap they are doing then we invade and now they have real grievances to point to. It seems the 'war' is self defeating, keep them out of the country and call it a draw. They can hate us all they want from across the ocean while we snipe a leader or two a year.

I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?

[HBARleatherneck]

The civilized world can not win a war against savages. (or at least they arent ready yet) And thats what they are...savages. Civilized people can not comprehend the brain washing that these people have from birth. Civilized people cant imagine blowing themselves up. Civilized people cant imagine wanting to exterminate people because of their beliefs or differences.
I hear isdum apologists saying "well christianity did this during the middle ages" or "catholics and non catholics do this in Ireland, etc" It is different because... First we are talking today, not 500 years ago. And christianity and the other world religions do not teach their adherants to kill non believers. this is a religion of evil, promoted by evil people who wish death on their own people and everyone else. its all about control ... and money.

[Great-Kazoo]

I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?

Over rated, how so? Yes it does.

[StagLefty]

We need to take the gloves off if we hope to win and I don't think the politicians will allow that.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2

[merl]

Over rated, how so? Yes it does.

It matters in a "we cannot let them hit us" way or in a "it hurts us" way? (or something else?)

I'm of the opinion it does not hurt the country, certainly not any more than war is (in an economic sense). Until they figure out a plan to get Glen Canyon Dam or equivalent it would be hard to.

[roberth]

We could win but we won't, change the rules of engagement and give our military a chance to win and they'll win handily.

Stateside, most people are tired of the war, tired of burying brave, young men who appear to have died for nothing, tired of knowing we could win but instead watching the government snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Bailey Guns]

^^ It's doable, in theory. No politician has the guts to suggest it, much less preside over it.

[merl]

^^ It's doable, in theory. No politician has the guts to suggest it, much less preside over it.

How, rounding up everyone following Islam and shooting them?

[cstone]

Considering the last 40 years, many would consider a draw to be a win.

Define "win." Does that mean that moderate, non-Jihadi/Wahbist Muslims lose sway and less violent Muslims convince the majority of their fellow believers to give up tactics of terrorism and violence? The western nations have been attempting to influence this outcome but it doesn't seem to be accomplishing the intended results.

No one can win in the battle of demographics when they barely manage to make population replacement. Almost without exception, as affluence and western education increase in a population, the reproductive rates for that demographic group goes down. Several countries have been looking at even or negative population growth. In the end, no culture can survive if they do not reproduce and pass along their cultural values. Additionally, western culture seem t have abandoned many of the most distinct and I would argue important aspects of what have made western culture dominant for the past 700 to 800 years.

The only thing that will ultimately beat Islamic terrorism is internal strife between Muslims. My $.02

[Jamnanc]

I think when he says one Boston per year, he's actually right. A couple hundred die in a tornado, a mudslide, a bombing, out of 350,000,000 is not significant unless we make it so.

Longer term, I think the culture of Islam will change if and when there is a stable capitalist society in the Middle East. It's pretty tough to get someone to stop watching tv and having sex after a nice dinner to go blow themselves up.

[Bailey Guns]

How, rounding up everyone following Islam and shooting them?

No. And no need to round them up. Untie the hands of the military and fight this like a war. There are also ways of punishing states that allow these people to operate within their borders. But it's all academic because it isn't going to happen.

[Aloha_Shooter]

CAN we fight it and win? Sure we could if we had the cohesiveness and tough-mindedness that we displayed 70 years ago.

WILL we do it? My observation of societal changes, The Powers That Be, and the past 2-3 generations suggests that we are likely to lose and dismally so. Osama bin Laden thought America was a paper tiger and -- with rare exception -- the last 40 years has shown he was right. It took us years in Iraq and Afghanistan to get to a total casualty figure equal to the first day on Iwo Jima but that was enough to get a substantial portion of the population to vote in people with a proven track record of perfidy, incompetence, and downright treasonous intent. People freak out when little kids draw crude pictures of firearms or bite their Pop-Tarts into the shape of a handgun and it's the kids who did it (or their parents) who get flak instead of the morons who get apoplectic at the sight of an inanimate object.

The civilized world can win against savages. The Brits showed that during Pax Brittanica but they and we have let our national backbones turn to jelly. A century ago, Shackelton advertised for men for his Antarctica expedition saying

MEN WANTED for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success.
and got dozens upon dozens of applicants. Today, a lot of kids won't consider a job unless they get wifi, A/C, time to peruse Facebook and Twitter, and get comfy ergonomic furniture. Older people won't consider it unless it meets union demands and will chastise anyone willing to do more for less. In 40 years, we've gone from the Apollo astronauts to Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber -- yeah, that society isn't going to win against the Islamists. We not only need a modern Patton, we need a society that would support him fighting the enemy.

[bellavite1]

You can't win a war with religiously motivated people.
We wage war for economical reasons (don't give me all that idealistic bullshit, the poor bastard going to war may fight for ideas, but our government fights for money);
When the losses are higher than the potential gains, war is over.
For Muslims there is no lose: if they lose and die fighting they go to heaven, if they win for the glory of Allah they go to heaven.
And no, you cannot possibly nuke every Muslim on earth.
Even if we stayed out of the middle east bullshit it would have caught up with us sooner or later.
We need to dig in and mind our own businesses as much as possible.
And we need to get the fuck out of there ASAP.

[merl]

What enemy do you expect to be fighting like it was WW2? They are not wearing uniforms and they look just like the next guy. You can play whack-a-mole getting training camps but I don't see how the military is expected to win this.

[BPTactical]

The only way the "War on Terrorism" is winnable would be to make the cost to those that wage it against us so very brutal and horrific that the will to wage said war wanes.
We would have to break their resolve to wage war.


Neva gonna happen.
The world would not allow it even if we had the spine to do so.

[ruthabagah]

We lost the war in 1291.... last crusade.

[Gman]

Radical Islam will never go away. What you can do is beat them back from your door step with military might. It's already happened several times in history. This country already did it once with the Barbary pirates.

Unfortunately, the current population has lost touch with the cold reality of the world.

There is no common ground. You kill them or they kill you. There is no middle way.

[hatidua]

A country that is several hundred years old, supposing to eradicate an ideology that is several thousand years old? -naivete' on steroids.

The U.S. has failed miserably at learning from the mistakes and failures of other countries. Whether it be Indochina or Afghanistan, other's have tried, others have failed, and we seemingly think that "this time, it will be different!". It's sad, but it's seemingly what we are doomed to repeat. Drones, will not kill ideas.

But fear not, we'll spend untold Billions on the effort.

[Zundfolge]

Un winnable war.

An un winnable war if its fought with the same ethics and morality of wars of the recent past. The simple fact is that the only solution to "radical Islam" (which isn't radical, its more akin to orthodox) is genocide. Western civilization has lost its willingness to fight a genocidal war so we will at best contain it for a few more generations and then eventually lose (of course they could end up snuffing themselves out ... but I wouldn't bet we'd be that lucky).


A country that is several hundred years old, supposing to eradicate an ideology that is several thousand years old? -naivete' on steroids.

Islam is only 1404 years old.

[Bailey Guns]

A country that is several hundred years old, supposing to eradicate an ideology that is several thousand years old? -naivete' on steroids.


Islam is only 1404 years old.

I laughed at that, too.

I also laugh at the thought that it's our "meddling" in the middle east that causes Muslims to hate us. Really? Then explain why we've had problems with Muslims since the very beginning of our country. Please...I can't wait.

And for those of you who say we should be out of the middle east, no "war for oil", etc... Then you'd better get ready for a radical change of lifestyle because if there is anything worth fighting a war over, it's oil. A steady supply for the next several decades at least is absolutely essential to our security and our way of life. I doubt anyone can point to anything in their home that isn't somehow connected to oil.

[hatidua]

I laughed at that, too.

200 years vs 1400 years, does that temper your laughter at all? Tell us, how is the U.S. going to enlighten a culture that is just slightly older (call it 500 years if it makes you more confident) - is it Facebook, Myspace, Tumblr, General Dynamics & Apple Computer that makes us instantly more capable, or shall we just assume that we can bomb the world into our way of thinking? it's working just peachy so far, isn't it.....

When the U.S. QE finally fails and we can't bankroll the buffer nations, what then, is it apple pie and hot dogs that will sustain our way of thinking?

[Bailey Guns]

No, it doesn't because your argument just doesn't hold water. Muslims have been at war with non-Muslims since Islam became a religion. Our culture is basically the same as most of western Europe and they've been fighting Islam for about 1400 years.

This is not a problem of western culture, or US meddling or anything else other than Islamists hate non-Islamists and want them either converted or dead. The only problem we have as a nation is the unwillingness to recognize: 1) It's not us, it's them. That guilt thing has gotten really popular in the last 3 or 4 decades, and 2) We don't have the national will to really fight this. So, we're going to have to come up with some other solution and that thought scares me more than radical Islam.

[crays]

Until we, as a people, united, are wllling to fully embrace a dynamic change in the "Rules of Engagement", it is going to continue to be a sorry and miserable row to hoe.

Until it effects the average citizen on a constant and consistent basis, I fear that we are trudging up a steep and sandy hill.

Lost battle/war? Not by any means, but there are far too few Americans willing to face the reality of how to quiet this onslaught, let alone willing to take up arms, and put themselves in danger, to do so.

My $.02

[hatidua]

No, it doesn't because your argument just doesn't hold water.

I don't have an "argument", I've lived (not visited, LIVED) in three different Muslim countries and from your posts, I can fairly easily tell you haven't spent much time, if any, in even one.

While devout Americans may go to church on Sundays, many (if not most) Muslims live's revolve around their religion and an attempt to change a mindset takes far more than a political or military campaign by a foreign nation. I'd be the last person to suggest or insinuate that a large portion of Muslims are radical or favor terrorist activities but the notion that some nation can come along and in the course of a decade or two change the minds of a generation that is hell-bent on causing a stink is blind ignorance.

[merl]

Anyone care to be specific on what they would change on the ROE?

[Irving]

Hatidua never suggested that the US was responsible for Middle East aggression, for the record.

[Monky]

It is not a war. A war is fought against an enemy. The enemy here is a belief and uneducated fanatics.

We would have to stoop to their level to defeat them. Sadly they are human and most intelligent folks do believe all life has value. If we adopted their tactics and beliefs through technology alone we could end it quickly. Wipe them out by the hundreds with out caring about excess casualty. Known terrorist is hidden in a bldg with innocents but still protected by those sympathetic... Level it with zero fucks given. We would win... Sadly we don't believe in religious genocide


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[Bailey Guns]

Let's see...moved to Algeria when I was about 7, LIVED (not visited) there for 3 years (just after their war for independence against the French...a very exciting time to be in Algiers), and traveled extensively throughout N Africa. Also visited more than a few Muslim countries during my military years...in the mid-east and elsewhere. Another argument that doesn't hold water.

[davsel]

Good vs evil.
Good will win in the end.
I read it somewhere.

[Bailey Guns]

We would have to stoop to their level to defeat them. Sadly they are human and most intelligent folks do believe all life has value. If we adopted their tactics and beliefs through technology alone we could end it quickly. Wipe them out by the hundreds with out caring about excess casualty. Known terrorist is hidden in a bldg with innocents but still protected by those sympathetic... Level it with zero fucks given. We would win... Sadly we don't believe in religious genocide


That's right. A lot of non-fanatics would have to die. But, we have the (non-nuclear) capability.

[hatidua]

Let's see...moved to Algeria when I was about 7, LIVED (not visited) there for 3 years (just after their war for independence against the French...a very exciting time to be in Algiers)

I lived in the Philippines from the age of seven to 14 (Marshal law declared the day after I landed), I would not even remotely try to convince someone that I knew Squat about the Marcos regime when I was ten but alas, I may have been a slow learner after only three years in-country - somehow I don't think childhood exposure counts for much other than exotic food experience.

You obviously know all, I'm bowing out of this as the rest can no doubt benefit from your extensive wisdom. Carry on sport.

[Bailey Guns]

It is not a war. A war is fought against an enemy. The enemy here is a belief and uneducated fanatics.

I'd have to disagree with that after a little thought. The enemy here is a group of people with a certain religious belief and who act a certain way based on that belief. It's not the standard enemy wearing a uniform and fighting for a particular country but it's still an enemy in the form of a group of people with vastly different beliefs/morals/values than ours. I do think it's a war against that group of people regardless of how difficult they are to identify. Or at least it sure looks like a war and people are sure dying like it's a war.

[Bailey Guns]

I lived in the Philippines from the age of seven to 14 (Marshal law declared the day after I landed), I would not even remotely try to convince someone that I knew Squat about the Marcos regime when I was ten but alas, I may have been a slow learner after only three years in-country - somehow I don't think childhood exposure counts for much other than exotic food experience.

You obviously know all, I'm bowing out of this as the rest can no doubt benefit from your extensive wisdom. Carry on sport.

You're the one who stated you knew my life history of living or visiting Muslim countries...sport. Bye.

[crays]

Anyone care to be specific on what they would change on the ROE?

Our troops are constrained by ROE, and the enemy addressed in this thread clearly is not. Isn't that the crux of the issue here?

[Gman]

The enemy could already be in this country. How would ROE apply?

[stoner01]

The enemy has been in this country for a long time. There's a lot of RoE and paper BS that needs to be changed. Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel.

[Great-Kazoo]

SEE EYE V EYE EL Please gentleman.

[Mick-Boy]

A couple of things;

As a general rule, you can't fight an ideology with force. It's been tried for thousands of years and there are very few examples of success.

Terrorism is a tactic. The military defines it (to the best of my memory) as "The unlawful use or threat of use of violence intended to intimidate governments or societies". You can't win a war against a tactic.

There's a parable/joke/illustrative story that's told in Afghanistan.
Two men are talking. "You remember that man that insulted my grandfather's honor 50 years ago?" asks the first. "Yes." replies the second man. "I killed him today" declares the first man. "What was your hurry?" asks the second.

These people think differently than we do. They operate on different timelines. This isn't something you can discount. On a national level, For Americans, the US/UK meddling in internal Iranian politics and putting the Shah back in power in '53 is old news and has no bearing on current events/thought processes. For some Iranians it might have happened yesterday.

All this to say, what we lack is a clearly defined enemy and an understanding of how to fight them. Are we at war with the Taliban? Are we at war with Islam? Are we at war with a specific sect of Islam? Are we at war with everyone who wishes us harm? Are we at war at all? Are soldiers with weapons the best way to fight all our enemies?

Some people who wish us harm don't have the capability. Is someone with intent but not means a threat right now?

Until we know who/what we're supposed to be fighting we can't chose a strategy to be successful.

[merl]

Our troops are constrained by ROE, and the enemy addressed in this thread clearly is not. Isn't that the crux of the issue here?

What are you proposing the troops be allowed to to that they cannot do now? Multiple people have said change the ROE, take the gloves off. This sounds like a fluff sound bite to me, what should the troops be allowed to do that they cannot now do?

As a civilian ROE means "when can troops shoot?" Is there more to it than that?

edit:
I see Stoner added "Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel." Thank you.
Since we already do use intel heavily, is the change here lowering the confirmation standards so we don't have to know for sure the intel is accurate?

[Ronin13]

I'll chime in, having actually been a part of this war and seen it first hand...
There are some things everyone needs to understand first and foremost before anything else can be discussed.
1. Who is the enemy? What motivates him? At what end will he cease hostilities? These three questions are vital to understanding the enemy, and in turn, choosing a course of action to take in regards to the enemy. Make no mistake, Jihadists are the enemy. Who are these jihadists? Many will claim that the majority of the Muslim world is peaceful and has no qualms with the West. This may be true, but even if it's 51% that may be a majority, but the other 49% is a shit load of people to be up against. They're motivated by some twisted belief that their mission in life is to introduce a world wide calphate. Anything that is not Islam must submit or die. That's it. They will stop fighting when there is no one left to fight. Let me say that again THEY WILL STOP FIGHTING WHEN THERE IS NO ONE LEFT TO FIGHT. They do not want compromise, they do not want a deal, they want one thing, everyone is a Muslim or a subject of their Muslim rule. That's right sports fans, no more bacon, no more libations with your friends, no more women working or driving, and your wife/sister/daughter must be covered and has no say in politics. You will pray 5 times a day, you will live your life according to the Koran, and you will submit the will of almighty Allah. That's what they want, and they will take nothing else.
2. Israel. This needs to be mentioned because it helps to understand them further. The case with Israel. They have offered peace dozens of times, every time the Palestinians have swatted their hand away. When will people realize that when it comes to the Jews and other Non-Muslims there will be no peace? Simply because Israel exists is enough to make any non-moderate Muslim's blood boil. Once the Jewish state is gone do you think they'll stop? Hardly. Watch India go, then Eastern Europe, then Asia, then Western Europe, then us. If left unchecked they will achieve their goal of world domination. Sounds cartoon, but that's exactly what they want, to dominate the world.
3. How do we win? The rules in this war are simple- the most committed wins. So far we are on track to lose, and badly. Merl asked What can we do that we're not allowed to do now? I wish it were that simple. There are two ways to fight this war, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do the soft way (hearts and minds), or we can do the more effective Spartan/Machiavellian way (bullets into hearts and minds). What I mean is: we are currently trying to look like the good guys, trying to help people, building roads, painting schools, erecting churches (er Mosques) and generally pandering to the nation we're occupying. One school of thought (I didn't come up with this, I'm only sharing it as an alternative) states that the kids gloves need to come off; that we need to play by their rules if we're ever going to win. This can be achieved very simply. If you're an enemy, you die. If you aid the enemy, you die. No longer will we pander to their rules, their ideas, their methodology. They execute their prisoners by beheading them, we send them to Cuba? No more, we put their heads on poles outside of collaborating villages. Scare them, show them no mercy, no quarter. Many think this methodology will only create more enemies, I can't say for sure, but I will say that the current tactic we're using doesn't seem to be working. We need to look at the root cause- why was Afghanistan so peaceful back in the 1970's and then became violent for the last 40+ years? Russia really screwed that up. And when a vacuum is created, the most powerful will fill it. When that more powerful force filling the void is hell bent on evil, we're in trouble. This is why we nation build.

[68Charger]

Give them a new profit (not the money kind) that changes their ideology.

How do you do that? that's the tough nut to crack.

[crays]

What are you proposing the troops be allowed to to that they cannot do now? Multiple people have said change the ROE, take the gloves off. This sounds like a fluff sound bite to me, what should the troops be allowed to do that they cannot now do?

As a civilian ROE means "when can troops shoot?" Is there more to it than that?

edit:
I see Stoner added "Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel." Thank you.
Since we already do use intel heavily, is the change here lowering the confirmation standards so we don't have to know for sure the intel is accurate?

Now, merl, if I had a specific and concise answer to that, I'd be making a lot more money. Sorry if you consider my statement of opinion a little to general.

But since you have previously stated the following, what good would a detailed answer do anyway?
I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?
I'm of the opinion it does not hurt the country, certainly not any more than war is (in an economic sense).

There are many members here who are more highly trained, educated and experienced, concerning those specifics, to which I will defer, and several have offered up more specific opinions on change.

[Zundfolge]

Give them a new profit (not the money kind) that changes their ideology.

How do you do that? that's the tough nut to crack.

There have been many people that have said that Islam needs something akin to a "Protestant Reformation" movement. The sad truth is that Wahabism and what we call "radical" Islam IS that reformation. Read the Koran ... Islam is rotten at its core.

Raymond Ibrahim wrote a great piece on this very subject. (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/islams-protestant-reformation/)

[Mick-Boy]

Dude.. Learn how to use paragraphs. Please.


I'll chime in, having actually been a part of this war and seen it first hand...
There are some things everyone needs to understand first and foremost before anything else can be discussed.
1. Who is the enemy? What motivates him? At what end will he cease hostilities? These three questions are vital to understanding the enemy, and in turn, choosing a course of action to take in regards to the enemy. Make no mistake, Jihadists are the enemy. Who are these jihadists? Many will claim that the majority of the Muslim world is peaceful and has no qualms with the West. This may be true, but even if it's 51% that may be a majority, but the other 49% is a shit load of people to be up against. They're motivated by some twisted belief that their mission in life is to introduce a world wide calphate. Anything that is not Islam must submit or die. That's it. They will stop fighting when there is no one left to fight. Let me say that again THEY WILL STOP FIGHTING WHEN THERE IS NO ONE LEFT TO FIGHT. They do not want compromise, they do not want a deal, they want one thing, everyone is a Muslim or a subject of their Muslim rule. That's right sports fans, no more bacon, no more libations with your friends, no more women working or driving, and your wife/sister/daughter must be covered and has no say in politics. You will pray 5 times a day, you will live your life according to the Koran, and you will submit the will of almighty Allah. That's what they want, and they will take nothing else.
2. Israel. This needs to be mentioned because it helps to understand them further. The case with Israel. They have offered peace dozens of times, every time the Palestinians have swatted their hand away. When will people realize that when it comes to the Jews and other Non-Muslims there will be no peace? Simply because Israel exists is enough to make any non-moderate Muslim's blood boil. Once the Jewish state is gone do you think they'll stop? Hardly. Watch India go, then Eastern Europe, then Asia, then Western Europe, then us. If left unchecked they will achieve their goal of world domination. Sounds cartoon, but that's exactly what they want, to dominate the world.
3. How do we win? The rules in this war are simple- the most committed wins. So far we are on track to lose, and badly. Merl asked What can we do that we're not allowed to do now? I wish it were that simple. There are two ways to fight this war, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do the soft way (hearts and minds), or we can do the more effective Spartan/Machiavellian way (bullets into hearts and minds). What I mean is: we are currently trying to look like the good guys, trying to help people, building roads, painting schools, erecting churches (er Mosques) and generally pandering to the nation we're occupying. One school of thought (I didn't come up with this, I'm only sharing it as an alternative) states that the kids gloves need to come off; that we need to play by their rules if we're ever going to win. This can be achieved very simply. If you're an enemy, you die. If you aid the enemy, you die. No longer will we pander to their rules, their ideas, their methodology. They execute their prisoners by beheading them, we send them to Cuba? No more, we put their heads on poles outside of collaborating villages. Scare them, show them no mercy, no quarter. Many think this methodology will only create more enemies, I can't say for sure, but I will say that the current tactic we're using doesn't seem to be working. We need to look at the root cause- why was Afghanistan so peaceful back in the 1970's and then became violent for the last 40+ years? Russia really screwed that up. And when a vacuum is created, the most powerful will fill it. When that more powerful force filling the void is hell bent on evil, we're in trouble. This is why we nation build.

1. How do you differentiate between jihadists and the rest of the Muslim world? Is someone's beliefs or threats enough to make them the enemy or do we need action?

2. History has proven that Israel can peacefully coexist with Muslim nations. Israel and Egypt have been at peace since 1979 and Israel and Jordan since 1994. I laid out the three big roadblocks to an Israel/Palestine in the thread about that very topic from a couple of years ago (cliff-notes: Jerusalem, Settlements in the West Bank, Right or return for Palestinian refugees in surrounding countries). There hasn't been a serious peace offer made that would be remotely acceptable to both sides.

3. Apply just a tiny bit of historical knowledge and you can see that the fist won't break a place like Afghanistan. What could we do that the Russians didn't do in the ten years they fought here? The Taliban couldn't gain full control. Should we apply the same tactics that they used unsuccessfully? How long do we keep putting heads on stakes?

[merl]

But since you have previously stated the following, what good would a detailed answer do anyway?
It is possible, likely even, that there are some very stupid regulations out there regarding what troops can do. We have members that have seen this first hand, maybe there is something they can point to. The answer is unlikely to convince me that this can be won through invasions but that does not mean we cannot clear out some plaque.

As for the threat being overrated, fighting the GWOT like a traditional war is costing a couple hundred soldiers a year and a truckload of cash. Attacks inside the US have cost alot less than that in both lives and money and I strongly doubt troops overseas have done much to stop attacks here.*

* There may be a reduction in that those that want to kill Americans find it is easier to blow up some soldiers than sneak inside the US. I hope we're not mainly there as bait.

[Singlestack]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.

[thvigil11]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.


+1 Creating DHS was just rearranging deck chairs. So far its easier to kill Americans that are overseas, but pull all our troops back and the focus will come to the mainland.

[crays]

It is possible, likely even, that there are some very stupid regulations out there regarding what troops can do. We have members that have seen this first hand, maybe there is something they can point to. The answer is unlikely to convince me that this can be won through invasions but that does not mean we cannot clear out some plaque.

As for the threat being overrated, fighting the GWOT like a traditional war is costing a couple hundred soldiers a year and a truckload of cash. Attacks inside the US have cost alot less than that in both lives and money and I strongly doubt troops overseas have done much to stop attacks here.*

* There may be a reduction in that those that want to kill Americans find it is easier to blow up some soldiers than sneak inside the US. I hope we're not mainly there as bait.

Although I do not agree that the threat is overstated, I do agree that traditional warfare is not the probable answer. I feel that it puts our troops at a disadvantage.

Considering your asterisk, I also don't feel that the "dollars and deaths" comparisons are completely valid.
Yes, wars are infinitely expensive, but to compare innocent civilian lives lost in a terror attack, on their home soil, to trained personnel who put themselves in the fray knowingly and willingly, is not apples to apples.
We definitely need to revise some tactics, but as I stated earlier, I don't know/have the answer to that.


Sent via Mobile Work Avoidance Device

[68Charger]

There have been many people that have said that Islam needs something akin to a "Protestant Reformation" movement. The sad truth is that Wahabism and what we call "radical" Islam IS that reformation. Read the Koran ... Islam is rotten at its core.

Raymond Ibrahim wrote a great piece on this very subject. (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/islams-protestant-reformation/)

I was talking about something more than reform... more like the book of Mormon, meant to fundamentally change the religion... but sadly, it would only possibly lead to a new sect, but the existing radical sect would continue it's destructive path... (nice article, BTW) every religious sect or denomination is born out of some disagreement, and religion is a creation of man.

I'm of the opinion that Islam is Satanism by another name... Allah is referred to as "a great deceiver" in the Quran itself, and another book refers to Satan as "the father of lies" Could it be they're referring to the same?

[ZERO THEORY]

You cannot defeat the ideology of fundamentalists. You can win conventional wars against nations, but you can never defeat an idea. Jihadists have taken everything the Soviets, US, England, and every ally therein have thrown at them and not done so much as bat an eye. They do not fear death, destruction, or defeat. How can you possibly defeat a man in war who welcomes his own demise? How can you threaten men when they have nothing to lose? They're willing to sacrifice their own wives and children in the name of the cause, so even if you were a true sadist, you couldn't even threaten their families; they'll gladly give them up as a way to propagate the heartlessness of the west.

These men are truly from another eon. They have no qualms about war and will never surrender their beliefs or cause.

[davsel]

I believe the Islamic "reformation" spoken of will come by way of the 12th Imam (Abu al-Qasim Muhammad or Mahdi).
Just as Jesus Christ gave Jews and Gentiles a new covenant, the 12th Imam will give Muslims a new covenant.
However, just as the Bible is to the Koran and Jesus Christ is to the Mahdi, the new covenants will be in opposition.

Both the Bible and Koran prophecy that a leader will arrive and bring about a period of peace - followed by the Apocalypse.
Educate yourself and do not be fooled.

As for winning or losing, we have no power over it. The outcome is predetermined.
Best I can do is try to come out the other side alive, and help as many others as I can do the same.

[Zundfolge]

I'm of the opinion that Islam is Satanism by another name... Allah is referred to as "a great deceiver" in the Quran itself, and another book refers to Satan as "the father of lies" Could it be they're referring to the same?

Oh absolutely. I believe that Mohammad was borderline insane (likely a high functioning schizophrenic) and honestly believed that the "Angel" that dictated the Quran to him was the Archangel Gabriel but was instead Lucifer (or one of his minions).

Start comparing Islam, "Progressivism" and Baal worship and you'll see a lot of overlaps. For one thing I find that anywhere you find hatred of Jews, you find Satan's fingerprints.

[roberth]

A turn for the worse...provided they've got the correct materials how much time before they get Iran to make a dirty bomb for them.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/isis-seized-uranium-compounds-from-lab-experts-downplay-threat/ - ISIS seizes uranium from lab; experts downplay 'dirty bomb' threat

[roberth]

I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?

An acceptable loss eh, what if the people murdered were your family?

I know people who lost people at the Twin Towers, it ain't fukken acceptable and neither is what happened in Boston.

[Gman]

Pearl Harbor - 2,350 dead, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 wounded

9-11 - 2,977 dead, including 55 military personnel.

So...which one was a war? How do you ignore such a threat?

[merl]

After pearl harbor we had the Japanese Empire standing there saying "Yep we did that." so we proceeded to be the crap out of them.
After 9-11 we had the Taliban standing there saying "Yep we did that." so we proceeded to beat the crap out of them. (but they are still there)

Are we going to unilaterally start invading folks now? That did not go so well in Iraq but I suppose we could do Syria, Iraq(again), Iran, Somalia, Libya, Nigeria, etc. The thing is, that will not stop the guy with 1000# of HE that notices sailing into the US on a pleasure boat is wide open. It won't stop the one that decides to walk across the border from Canada and plant a few hundred pipe bombs at the next Bolder Boulder.

Edit

An acceptable loss eh, what if the people murdered were your family?
I know people who lost people at the Twin Towers, it ain't fukken acceptable and neither is what happened in Boston.
Very tragic for those involved but there are some things you cannot defend against. The cost of defense (through offense in this case) is too great and doesn't actually create any defense.

[asmo]

There is a couple of ways to "win", but no one will actually do them. Top of mind:

You fight and ideology with the weaknesses and fears of that ideology.
You remove the ideology in its entirety.

[Great-Kazoo]

After pearl harbor we had the Japanese Empire standing there saying "Yep we did that." so we proceeded to be the crap out of them.
After 9-11 we had the Taliban standing there saying "Yep we did that." so we proceeded to beat the crap out of them. (but they are still there)

Are we going to unilaterally start invading folks now? That did not go so well in Iraq but I suppose we could do Syria, Iraq(again), Iran, Somalia, Libya, Nigeria, etc. The thing is, that will not stop the guy with 1000# of HE that notices sailing into the US on a pleasure boat is wide open. It won't stop the one that decides to walk across the border from Canada and plant a few hundred pipe bombs at the next Bolder Boulder.

Edit

Very tragic for those involved but there are some things you cannot defend against. The cost of defense (through offense in this case) is too great and doesn't actually create any defense.

I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter? ^^


So which way do you lean on this subject. Page 1 you said ^^ This^^

Then you say ^^this ^^


NO ATTACK on US soil is ACCEPTABLE. Maybe from the safety of your keyboard it is. For those of us who have lost friends and family members in TERRORIST attacks, we disagree.

America is more concerned about Political Correctness and what some illegal alien thinks, than the safety & security of it's citizens.

[merl]

Which way do I lean? I don't see a difference? It sucks. it is tragic for those involved but it is also acceptable overall given the cost of stopping it completely.

You say no attack on US soil is acceptable, ok, how do you propose you stop those two examples I gave? There is no PC there, there is reality. Some things you cannot stop except by blind luck. A madman that wants to kill a bunch of people either at a marathon or an elementary school is among those things.

[Zundfolge]

Ok, THIS could be interesting. ISIS May Target Mecca for Destruction (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/10/ISIS-May-Target-Mecca-For-Destruction)

Islam isn't going to "reform" itself so that it can peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world, but it might just self destruct (especially if given the appropriate pushes in the right places).


Thing is Islam is pretty easy to monkey wrench as it has some pretty harsh divisions between sects that make the Northern Ireland Catholic vs Protestant thing look like a minor dispute between friendly neighbors.

Since The West isn't interested in genocidal war (and honestly I have moral qualms about it as well) pushing Islam into civil war is probably our best bet. Wish I had some way to smuggle an Iranian financed North Korean nuke into Mecca.

[HBARleatherneck]

I think it would be a great thing if they would destory mecca. Then if the idiots would accidently blow up the dome of the rock while they are shooting rockets into Israel that would be a great encore. Lets see the mooslims implode. yeah, kill yourselves and leave us non savages out of it.