Thoughts on the War on Terrorism

Status
Not open for further replies.
The question was raised, "Why were we attacked?"

The answer is, because we are not Muslim.

The idea that it was because we try to police the world is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Carrying your theory further, it would be because we're not a specific kind of Muslim.

As for acting as World Police, I rather doubt that our self-righteous and born of hubris (and need for oil!) activities in the Middle East -- dating back generations -- had any positive impact on our perception as infidels. :fire:
 
Ezekiel,
There is truth to that. Corporate interests anywhere don't leave a good impression, whether here or overseas. But that doesn't excuse a act of war on people who had nothing to do with it, like the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, suicide bombers on buses and trains, cutting peoples heads off......they are a bunch of sadistic, suicidal, cult induced brain washed maniacs, parading around as a religion.
 
I guess it doesn't matter who really wrote it. Whoever it is, they have no
clue about what's going on since their boots have never touched the
ground in Iraq. Mine have. I'm not even going to get into the Iraq, Saddam,
Al Qaeda, WMDs thing here. It's been debunked by the Senate. Read
the report. It's posted now.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all
vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they
were threatened by the Muslims.
Click to expand...

This is idiotic. The Never-ending-neocon-Long-Global-War-on-Terror in
which the USA has become de-facto globocop (notice how NATO/Euros
refuse to send its sons to shed their precious blood in Afghanistan?) has
less to do with "production, income, exports" etc than the outsourcing of
our labor, closure of our factories, lack of border enforcement which brings
in cheap labor, etc has had in slowly DESTROYING our "way of life."

This is being done by our own so-called "leaders" in government and business
within THIS country --not by a bunch of foreign muslims. Well, I take part
of that back considering certain Saudis who were running money through
Riggs Bank before the FBI blew it open. But, consider that it was "our"
people who were running the deals from start to finish. Who was the
banker and who were the customers? Answer that question and you'll
connect ALL the dots.

These are the same "leaders" who have given us a $9+ trillion deficit, made
the "former" Chi-coms the suppliers of most of our consumer goods, allowed
our debt to be purchased by the same Chi-coms (thereby making them our
"masters"), and then given tax breaks to their buddies for closing our
domestic factories within a self-fulfilling prophecy in which Americans are
supposedly no longer "competitive." Yeah, no problem to cause that
process when the dealer slips the cards to a couple of select players sitting
at the table.....So *who* was it that had the knife under the table and
neutered us? Yep, the dealer and his buddies. They've de-nutted this nation
taken our wallet and are about to pick you up and throw you out the
door. But, while you still sit at the table, they tell you to be "more of a
man" and quit snivelling and being "unpatriotic" for asking a question about
why there are too many aces in the deck. Old psy tactic.

Come on, frogs, can't you feel that water getting hot yet?
 
But that doesn't excuse a act of war on people who had nothing to do with it, like the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, suicide bombers on buses and trains, cutting peoples heads off......
Click to expand...

There's no justifying a littany of reprisal actions, but to imply that we (collective) -- the populus electing, never questioning, and supporting our rabidly Imperialist leaders -- have "nothing to do" with this is just wrong. :banghead:
 
Thin Black Line,
QUOTE:
" I guess it doesn't matter who really wrote it. Whoever it is, they have no
clue about what's going on since their boots have never touched the
ground in Iraq. Mine have. I'm not even going to get into the Iraq, Saddam,
Al Qaeda, WMDs thing here. It's been debunked by the Senate. Read
the report. It's posted now."....

I'll read the Senate report. What did you think of it?
Some of what you write is similar to the marine Gen. Smedley Butler of 75 years ago.
I'd like to read anything you have to say or recommend as your boots have been there.
 
You're both right. Even if we withdrew from Iraq, Afghanistan tomorrow, and withdrew support of Israel immediately, those factions are still coming after us.
 
We had 190 Talban fighters spotted in an Afghanistan cemetery by an armed Predator drone. They were attending a funeral. We could not fire because we cannot target cemeteries. :banghead:

Does anyone else think this is stupid or just me?
 
cuchucainn ; For the most part, we were attacking the German/Japanese infrastructure -- factories, airfields, government/military facilities, etc.. We were not directly targeting the civilian population. (The only exception might be Dresden ... but that was the Brits doing the bombing in retaliation for Coventry.)
Click to expand...

That is simply not true.

The WWII firebombing raids were directed at the civilian populations of Kobe & Tokyo. The bombs were dropped on the civilian residential areas, at night, when surface winds were predicted to be high to spread the firestorm. The planners knew civilians were the ones making the weapons of war used to kill our servicemen. They were fair game and TARGETED by our strategic planners of WWII, and we won.

Until we realize it is the radical Islamic Muslim people training their kids to hate Americans, kill Americans, become martars for their cause we are doomed to loose this war.

www.obsessionthemovie.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5862460287603221198

This is WWIII and it is time to employ a strategy in which we will win. Western civilization depends on it.

Every country in the free world is being attacked in one way or another.
 
funny

i would think that dropping hundreds of incendiaries on a civilian population in paper and wood houses would be considered targeting civilian populations. as part of the pursuit of unconditional surrender. who was trumans top guy who resigned over the bomb being dropped while they were negotiating terms of surrender? i forget his name he went public with his objections but the spirit of payback was strong
 
I could care less about japan, the atrocities they did were to many to count.
Back to topic:
We should have killed the 190 taliban at the cemetary.
How many American soldiers lives might that have saved?:cuss:
It is not OK to have boundaries and no fire zones when the enemy has got none, to say the least.
 
We should have killed the 190 taliban at the cemetary.
How many American soldiers lives might that have saved?
Click to expand...

Agreed...but how successful do you think the president would be in getting some agreement we need to change these things? Hell, he can't even get agreement from McCain on simply getting a better definition about how to treat the terrorists we've captured. Basically everything he's tried (financial records, foreign surveillance, et al) gets blasted by the MSM and the dems for political reasons. Can you imagine the uproar from the MSM and the dems if he had authorized taking these guys out? It would be all over the AP newswire with special reports on CNN about how evil we are for bombing a cemetary. Obviously the dems want us to try and win this war with one or more hands tied behind our backs. They'd probably be happier if we limited the military to just using horses and swords. All because it gives them a better chance of getting elected.

The evidence is perfectly clear. It's in the dem's best interest in terms of elections to make sure we maximize our soldier and citizens deaths so they can capitalize on it in their election campaigns. It is clearly NOT in their interest to allow the president to be effective against the terrorists or minimize civilian and military casualties. That would cost them in terms of their election bids. What's so hard to see about that?

How about we place the blame for such things where it TRULY belongs..in the hands of people like Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, McCain and the MSM media for being the terrorists propoganda branch?
 
I agree completely with Ezekiel when he says we were attacked because we weren't a certain KIND of Muslim.

I've been saying that all along.

However, I do think that US Freedom is a major reason why we were attacked.

That certain KIND of Muslim hates freedom with a passion that lots of secular, non-religious Westerners merely cannot understand any more.

Freedom is EXACTLY what that certain kind of Muslim wants to destroy.

It's not just jingoistic propaganda to say that they hate freedom, and thus hate us for having so much of it.

For that certain kind of Muslim, "democracy" is not just a bad idea, it's a mortal sin.

Democracy means following decisions made by people, which is the opposite of sharia, which means, according to THAT kind of Muslim, following the edicts of Allah himself, as revealed to the prophet.

That's the Whole Freakin' Point to these hardline jihadist wack-jobs.

They DO want to kill us because we let our women wear (or not wear) whatever the Hell they want to wear.

They DO want to kill us because we read every book we want to read, watch any movie or TV show we want to watch, drink whatever alcohol we want to drink, etc. etc.

Remember.

Here are some the things the Taliban did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the closest they've gotten to establishing a pure Sharia state so far.

They banned and confiscated all televisions, all video tapes, all DVDs, all recordings of all music, all musical instruments.

They banned and confiscted all alcohol.

They stopped women on the street for wearing nail polish and either beat them, or just yanked the offending fingernails out.

They still allowed soccer to be played, but only on certain days. The players all had to wear modest, long clothing, and when your team scored a goal, the ONLY cheer you were allowed to yell was "ALLAHuah AKBAR!"

Freedom is their enemy.

hillbilly
 
Me: For the most part, we were attacking the German/Japanese infrastructure -- factories, airfields, government/military facilities, etc.. We were not directly targeting the civilian population. (The only exception might be Dresden ... but that was the Brits doing the bombing in retaliation for Coventry.)

_______

CTD99: That is simply not true.

The WWII firebombing raids were directed at the civilian populations of Kobe & Tokyo. The bombs were dropped on the civilian residential areas, at night, when surface winds were predicted to be high to spread the firestorm. The planners knew civilians were the ones making the weapons of war used to kill our servicemen. They were fair game and TARGETED by our strategic planners of WWII, and we won.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing the morality of targeting cities with civilians in them (I'm not opposed to it on moral grounds). I'm arguing its military effectiveness in the current situation.

Tokyo was the capital city with government facilities, military installations, factories -- and yes large concentrations of factory workers.

The targets in Kobe were an aircraft plant, dock area, and the Kawasaki shipyards which built submarines -- and yes, the large concentration of factory workers.

We were not --- NOT --- taregeting civilians just for the sake of killing them (as you propose we do in the Middle East). Targeting factory workers is hugely different military strategy than trying to wipe out civilians, and you know it.

See? The Iraqi insurgents don't control the capital city. They don't have military installations. They don't have factories, docks and plants. The don't have large concentrations of factory workers supporting their military/industrial ability. They're insurgents.

The same goes for Al Qaeda. No capital city. No military installations. No docks and plants. No concentrations of factory workers.

Besides, we're not afraid to bomb cities and take civilian lives. We bombed the living <bleep> out of Bagdad just a few years ago. Why? There were military, industrial and government targets there.

And we're still dropping bombs, from both manned and unmanned aircraft -- when that makes military sense.

Just like in WWII we use air strikes against military installations, industrial and government targets.

Just like in WWII we are using ground troops to root out pockets of resistance.

CTD99: Until we realize it is the radical Islamic Muslim people training their kids to hate Americans, kill Americans, become martars for their cause we are doomed to loose this war.
Click to expand...
You are correct on that point. I just don't see what WWII tactics used to destroy the industrial capacity of nation states has to do with destroying a nation-less cause that has almost no infrastructure, industrial capacity, government facilities, etc.
 
My friends,

The kind of hypocrisy I have seen when it comes to the GWOT is what was
said by the President himself at his WH news conference just a little while
ago during the lunch hour.

We have OBL in a place of sanctuary within Pakistan, the Paks even
offering a "truce", and W won't send US troops in there "because it's a
sovereign nation." Um, what was that again? So what was Afghanistan
back in 2001 and Iraq (supposedly connected to OBL/Al Qaeda) in 2003?
We had absolutely NO problem supposedly going after them in two
other "sovereign nations" and "going it alone" if we had to.

Now don't get me wrong --I do NOT think we should invade Pakistan. We've
bitten off too much as it is right now --in fact, we've taken food off the
wrong plate (Iraq) when it came to going after OBL/AlQ. Even the Russians
weren't so freaking stupid to do Afghanistan AND Chechnya at the same
time. Unfortunately, our American hubris has led us down that sorry stupid
path which the Rus were smart enough to avoid.

However, going by the administration's neo-con logic, we SHOULD be
invading Pakistan: harboring terrorists, elements within their own mil/intel
are "sympathetic" to the terrorists, AND (supposedly like Iran currently and
Iraq pre-2003 :rolleyes: ), they have NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Pakistan has
also repeatedly threatened it's neighbors (India).

We weren't worried about "offending" world opinion when it came to getting
OBL/AlQ in Afghanistan and Iraq, why should it matter now when we know
where he is and that country actually has working nukes?

"Politics" you say? Exactly. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with
stopping OBL, Al Q, and terrorism. Both sides of the political aisle like to
complain that Americans are losing their focus on safety, security, and
the potential impact of future terrorism, yet they are the very ones doing
"business as usual" in DC. This means little or no real support for the
"soldiers in the field" whether you're a National Guardsman deployed for
the second time to the wrong country (Iraq) or an FBI field agent who
has his security concerns memos ignored. Do you think we're going to
give a cr@p much longer when we see the big guys prolonging things on
the global stage while consolidating their power and giving their buddies
private contract $$$ to milk off of? These people have it in THEIR interest
to keep the fire going higher and as long as possible. They have absolutely
no incentive to fix the problem.

There's my rant. Here's how to fix the problem: assassinate the terrorist
leadership --both their supposed "independent" operators and their state
sponsors. That's right you kill them no matter what their public status is.
Can't get to them? BS. Everybody turns with enough blackmail and money.
Can't buy them off? Then freeze their assets and make it hard for their
state sponsors to do real business (not the bullcr@p so-called sanctions
against other state actors where they could still do business with French
banks and the ruling familes could continue on their European shopping
sprees!) LOL, no torture even required to pull that off and everyone can
quit yapping about violating GenCon#3. No one has a problem if you shoot a
bad guy. If he's in uniform use a FMJ, if not, use a SP/HP. :D

This is far more life and cost-effective than throwing WWII style brigades
into the desert where we kill car-loads of civies by accident and lose our
own AMERICAN soldiers while running up a tax bill that our grandkids can't
pay off.

So who might you ask is against this plan? Answer THAT questions and
you'll understand how the world is really run and who is calling the shots
--and why the real shots in the field are not taken.

Yep, there's my "thoughts on the War on Terrorism."

Someone doesn't like 'em? Tough. At least we still have a 1st Amendment
--for the time being.....
 
TBL,

I think you are correct: that is just taking "asymmetric warfare" to its logical and most efficient conclusion.

We have a world where Albright pimps for Dubai and Ridge pimps for Albania. Meanwhile, our warriors are used as pawns by selfish elites.
 
By ThinBlackLine
The kind of hypocrisy I have seen when it comes to the GWOT is what was
said by the President himself at his WH news conference just a little while
ago during the lunch hour.

We have OBL in a place of sanctuary within Pakistan, the Paks even
offering a "truce", and W won't send US troops in there "because it's a
sovereign nation." Um, what was that again? So what was Afghanistan
back in 2001 and Iraq (supposedly connected to OBL/Al Qaeda) in 2003?
We had absolutely NO problem supposedly going after them in two
other "sovereign nations" and "going it alone" if we had to.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of problems in going into Pakistan, and certainly some HUGE differences between the politics in Pakistan and the Taliban-run country of Afghanstan that we invaded.

First and foremost, the Prime Minister of Pakistan (Shaukut Aziz) showed a lot of guts in supporting us against the Taliban. He is a man of principle because a HUGE portion of his country were supportive of the Taliban. He, on the other hand, understands more than any other ally we have the nature and danger of radical islam. This has placed him in a delicate situation in which his life is constantly in danger, and should something happen to him it's quite likely that he would end up getting replaced by a radical Muslim leader.

He realizes the core of radical Islam starts in the education of the youth, and he is the ONLY world leader trying to do something about it in his country. Most of the children in Pakistan attend school at private muslim institutions that teach ONLY the religion of Islam...many of them teach radical Islam. He is trying very hard to incorporate these schools into the mainstream so that the next generation of Pakistani's have not only a chance to succeed in the real world, but won't be drawn into the hate rhetoric of the Islamo-Fascists. We need him in power as a demonstration to other nations what to do.

The area that OBL is in is in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP), which is an area that the government has less influence in than do the tribal leaders. He is trying to gain their trust and get more influence in the area by offering to bring them basic government services such as schools, electricity and communications infrastructure. But that's a very hard thing to do when you have a limited budget as he does.

OBL knows all of these politics and has used them to his advantage. He's not a stupid man. But in this case the damage we would do by taking action in that area might serve our short-term purpose at the risk of a long-term problem. We need to be just as long-term in our view of Pakistan as Mr Aziz is. There are MANY ways to fight the GWOT..only one of which is the military.

Believe me, I'm not a liberal by any means. I'm a hard core conservative. But I do believe there are cases in which a light touch may serve our purposes better than heavy-handedness...and this is definately one.
 
Fayetteville, North Carolina's Up & Coming Magazine,
By: D.G. Martin September 13, 2006
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17180907&BRD=1147&PAG=461&dept_id=483434&rfi=6

What should we say to each other about September 11, 2001, now that five years have gone by since that awful day? In searching for an answer, I found the column I wrote back then, and I want to share it with you again.

Here is what I wrote in September 2001:
War. War. War.

What is it about this word that excites us, that unifies us, that puts aside at least for a moment our selfish preoccupation with ourselves?
The word brings with it a spirit of action that rises out of September 11's time of despair, questionings, and anger. It rushes through my system like a miracle drug, wiping out my depression and lifting my spirits to new heights.

A flag banner decorates our front porch. My chest puffs out with pride as the army calls my son to a week's active duty to help process other reservists who are being called for longer periods of service during this war on terrorism.
War. War. War.

Oh, what a word. We will fight a war against terrorism. We will find it, destroy it, root it out, and avenge its murder of our friends and countrymen.

It is exhilarating and comforting.
But underneath I know it is not going to happen that way.
There is not going to be a quick, happy ending, no VE Day or a VJ Day, as there was at the end of the Second World War. Even if there is a successful military strike against bin Laden or his terrorist training camps, it will not win our "war."

Indeed, we must expect that an attack will unify and strengthen the terrorists and their supporters, just as the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon brought us together and strengthened our resolve.
Do not mistake me. A military strike may very well be an important part of our response to this challenge. If terrorism is a kind of cancer affecting the entire world, then radical surgery is probably a part of a comprehensive treatment plan. But radical surgery on a cancer patient is often an incomplete cure. And sometimes the surgery brings about its own set of unintended consequences. Similarly, military action cannot bring about a complete solution to the terrorism cancer, and every military strike will bring about its own set of unintended consequences.
Our efforts against terrorism and its causes are going to be long and drawn out. We can't maintain a "wartime" footing for so long. Maybe "war" is not the best word to describe to describe our commitment against terrorism.

Of course, this is not the first time our government has rallied us around a commitment to solve a serious problem by calling for a "war."
We have the war on poverty. The war on drugs. The war on crime. And we have declared war on racial hatred, on AIDS and other diseases, on under performing schools, on unsafe automobiles, on the polluters of the environment, and on many other varieties of "evil."

We haven't yet won any of those wars. There have been some great victories. Things are better than they would've been. But "complete victory" was probably never possible. Our national effort in all these areas continues - but without a "total war" commitment. We learned each time that we could not sustain a total national commitment to all these "wars" at the same time.

As we begin our national effort against worldwide terrorism, it might be well for us to remember our prior wars against these other endemic problems. Remember that they last a long time, remember that there are few decisive victories, and remember that Americans' attention spans don't last through long drawn-out indecisive wars.

Remembering those lessons and putting aside the war terminology, our leaders can better emphasize our country's need for a sustainable, long-term commitment to the development and patient implementation of wise policies to track down terrorists, clear out their breeding grounds, and deal with the root causes of their activity.

Using more restrained words to describe our resolve against terrorism, it may be easier for us to remember that there are other common tasks that are also critical to a healthy and safe America: fighting crime, promoting health, building a strong economy, strengthening education, improving the environment, and working together for a stronger, better country.

If the terrorists have diverted us from those ongoing tasks, they have already won.
 
"Sorta" okay to have a single thread running about WOT and about Illegals, but when these mostly-OT threads go to wandering around, they do get closed.

State *thoughts* clearly and briefly, okay? What others think--aside from the opening cite--doesn't really help.

Art
 
I agree we did not serve ourselves well with the "WoT" monicker. Perhaps it was necessary for the PC feelings of the day, I don't know. But when you disguise your own enemy from yourself, you doom yourself.

Seems to me once we define the conflict honestly -- the war against the militant Jihad-crazed branches of Islam -- things become clearer, and it becomes possible to strategize workable solutions. More workable than "don't bring bottled water on a airplane" at any rate.

I have never been as convinced that the culture of radicalized Islam needs to be utterly destroyed. Wahabism Delenda Est as it were.

Personally, I'd target the madrassas, the firebrand "Death to America" preacher types, etc etc.

Also, I finally understand why we had Indian Schools. I mean, my great-grandparents worked in a Indian School. My Grandfather went to one. The very idea of a school designed to "get the Indian out" of an entire generation seemed apalling to me.

Now.. I understand why they did it. We haven't had any Indian wars since, and it's a heck of a lot better solution than genocide, as terrible as it is.

So smash the madrassas and build "Indian schools?" I dunno... maybe.

Heck, I'd love to see a Manhattan project to develop a little nanotech bug that could lodge in everyone in a given area, and if it heard enough Jihadi talk just migrate on over to their brain and puff up inside a blood vessel. Boom, the Jihadis stroke out, wrath of God. (The trick with that idea is who gets to control the little buggers after the Jihadis are gone.. I'd hate to see 'em in Schumer's hands for instance)

Regardless, the culture of militant Islam as defined by the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah, etc... needs to be wiped out. And a lot of good people are going to die in the process, I fear.

But enough rambling from me.
Yikes... gonna be an interesting next few decades. :(
 
Regardless, the culture of militant Islam as defined by the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah, etc... needs to be wiped out. And a lot of good people are going to die in the process, I fear.
Click to expand...

I would say the ACCEPTABILITY of the culture of militant Islam needs to be wiped out.

We've faced the same challenge here in America with radical white supremists, but it's not acceptable and therefore stays out of the mainstream where it can really have much influence. You can't wipe out an ideology with bullets, you CAN wipe it out through public opinion. You can expose it for what it is, a way of dying that serves no real purpose.

GW has the right idea. A democratically elected government by the people will always choose the path that provides the greatest hope for the children of the masses. Given a choice, rational people will always choose to put power into the hands of those that offer hope for a better future, and that is not the picture painted by radical Islam. The problem is protecting and keeping rational, moderate Muslims in power until they can sustain themselves and bring about that ideological change. That DOES require a bullet or two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
This War Is For Real
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
B
  • Locked
From the FCSI
Replies
1
Views
258
taliv
T
O
  • Locked
received in an e-mail
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
one-shot-one
O
H
  • Locked
Random thoughts: Natonal Security,War on terrorism,confidence in leaders,common sence
Replies
7
Views
394
Harve Curry
H
2
  • Locked
U.S. fears attacks from Muslims in armed forces
Replies
0
Views
301
2dogs
2
Back
Top