"Bet she regrets asking her question..."

[68Charger]

That was entertaining.

As far as an answer to her question: Headshots may very well be a possible solution. But that sure adds fuel to their fire, doesn't it?

It's a double-edged sword and really not a solution to the problem... but anything less they see as weakness, which is even more dangerous.

[Irving]

Saying, "Kill 'em all and kill 'em good!" is fun and all, but it is a cheap cop-out as far as an answer goes. The most common answer I hear is, "Make the price too high for them." That works for a speeding ticket, not a religious ideology. Can anyone draw a line in the sand as to when the cost would be too high for you to give up your 2A rights? What about your religious beliefs. I have a feeling that people killing you and others like you for what you believe, isn't going to make you any more likely to just up and believe something else.

Before people come in and start calling me a liberal and trashing me, I agree that this enemy should be engaged and eliminated, so save all the rhetoric for another thread. However, the simple question of "How do you fight an ideology with weapons?" is an interesting question with potential for some pretty deep and complex discussion well beyond "Shoot their faces off!"

[MED]

Saying, "Kill 'em all and kill 'em good!" is fun and all, but it is a cheap cop-out as far as an answer goes. The most common answer I hear is, "Make the price too high for them." That works for a speeding ticket, not a religious ideology. Can anyone draw a line in the sand as to when the cost would be too high for you to give up your 2A rights? What about your religious beliefs. I have a feeling that people killing you and others like you for what you believe, isn't going to make you any more likely to just up and believe something else.

Before people come in and start calling me a liberal and trashing me, I agree that this enemy should be engaged and eliminated, so save all the rhetoric for another thread. However, the simple question of "How do you fight an ideology with weapons?" is an interesting question with potential for some pretty deep and complex discussion well beyond "Shoot their faces off!"

First, our country needs to understand that 350 million jihadists are an imminent threat as does the rest of the world. There can be no productive action until this is accepted. Secondly, the notion of social justice in international relations costs this country lives and money. Third, adopt the doctrine of the only path of Jihad is destruction. My biggest frustration after 9/11 was the idea of rebuilding a friendly government...what a waste of time with the same eventual result as the Shah in Iran. The policy should have been terror equals death for either individuals, groups, or nations; make it a real choice and drive a wedge between those with something to lose and those who don't; isolate the jihadists as much as possible. After Iraq was destroyed, they should have been left to fight it out and rebuild themselves. Our policy should have been; who's next? The key problems here at home are the pussified resolve of the American people and the environmental BS that makes us dependent on Middle East oil. How can we truly be effective if we have to kiss the ass of Saudia Arabia and the other Arab oil producing countries? As the speaker stated, we need to wake up and accept the threat. With a commander and chief like Obama, we might as well just throw in the towel since that is what he is doing anyway as he turns over our national interests to foreign powers.

[TFOGGER]

The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

The same way you propagate an ideology with weapons. Radical Islam has made no apologies for using terror tactics to attempt to expand their sphere of influence or eliminate any and all that choose not to submit to their will. The only way to successfully combat such an opponent is to convince them that the cost of victory is too high(by extracting that cost in a significant way), or eliminate their ability to continue to wage war, by eliminating them.

[Ranger353]

Damm!

[Irving]

Well stated MED. I agree. TFOGGER, option 2 sounds like the only viable option to me.

[68Charger]

The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

You bring the fight to THEIR backyard, so it is largely there, and not on American soil (with the exception of consulates and embassies in Middle East region)
So when the inevitable suicide bombers strike, the innocent people it kills and impacts directly and indirectly are mostly other Muslims, and people in their region that need be the ones turning against the radicals.
There is a cost of American lives- but at least they are people trained to fight back, and not innocent American civilians on planes and in buildings that those planes are flown into...

This should also be combined with a propaganda war- if you're going to use drone strikes, there will be some collateral damage.
make it 100% clear that associating with, harboring or otherwise being around those groups may lead to your demise- "our fight is not with you, it is with those that seek to harm us"

[Irving]

Very good answer Luny.

[davsel]

Haven't head a peep from Japan since 9 Aug 1945.
Just sayin.

[68Charger]

Haven't head a peep from Japan since 9 Aug 1945.
Just sayin.

it ain't 1945 anymore....
just sayin.

You use nukes with the massive collateral damage associated with them, and the rest of the world will condemn your actions.
I know it feels like "99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name" but you nuke the Mid-East and Muslims around the rest of the world will "radicalize" in record numbers in other regions of the world, in addition our allies will turn their backs on us for going too far. It seems like a simple answer, but it would lead to much more complex issues. What about friendly nations that now have radioactive fallout because they're downwind from the mid-East... I mean, we're not going to have anyone answer the phones at call centers anymore!