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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl Post #3

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl Post #7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Dude.. Learn how to use paragraphs. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

+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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

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.

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

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.

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...wnplay-threat/ - ISIS seizes uranium from lab; experts downplay 'dirty bomb' threat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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.

Ok, THIS could be interesting. 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.

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.