Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/5/2004 3:47:26 PM EST
I saw a post mentioning this in another thread, and did not want to hijack the thread. I personally, think that we can fight valiantly, but I think this shit is going to go on for quite some time. We're fighting a belief, not a tangible military. We would have to phisically kill every muslim to rid any thought of a "jihad". What do you guys think??
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:48:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 3:49:13 PM EST by dave223]

Originally Posted By shootemup:
Is the War On Terror "winnable"?


Yes, but the majority does not have the stomach to do so.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:51:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By shootemup:
I saw a post mentioning this in another thread, and did not want to hijack the thread. I personally, think that we can fight valiantly, but I think this shit is going to go on for quite some time. We're fighting a belief, not a tangible military. We would have to phisically kill every muslim to rid any thought of a "jihad". What do you guys think??



Yes, so long as we refuse to do what you advocate.

We have to deal with the secular cause, ignore the 'Islamic' part, and focus on the TERRORISIM part.

Anything else spells sure defeat...

Most here do not have the logical presence of mind to see beyond hate & rage, which is mandatory for a coherant strategy...
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:51:36 PM EST
No, because people in general dont have the backbone to do what needs to be done.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:52:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 3:52:54 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By shootemup:
I saw a post mentioning this in another thread, and did not want to hijack the thread. I personally, think that we can fight valiantly, but I think this shit is going to go on for quite some time. We're fighting a belief, not a tangible military. We would have to phisically kill every muslim to rid any thought of a "jihad". What do you guys think??




Even that would not preclude some emergence of white supremacist or seperatist homegrown "terror" group suddenly springing up. Even if Islam had never existed, Tim McVeigh might still have done what he did, and Eric Rudolph would still have done what he did and Ted Kazynski would still have done what he did. The IRA weren't muslim. The Baader-Meinhof gang weren't muslim. Similar groups could absolutely arise INSIDE the U.S. in the future.


If the question is "can we ever completely prevent terrorist acts" - the answer is clearly no.

If the quesiton is "can we prevent organized terror groups from perpetrating large-scale terror attacks on U.S. soil" I think the answer is maybe.

If the question is "can we smash known terror groups, undercut their funding and organizations, and prevent them from operating effectively" the answer is yes.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:56:41 PM EST
Yes and no.
No if we keep going about it as we are now. This would work for partial containment.
Yes if we fight a war on their level which means "either you're with us or you're against us" and allow them no safe place to hide. This includes "holy sites".
It would also demand that ALL nations who support these islamic cockroaches IN ANY WAY will risk military action against them...NO EXEPTIONS !!
But as I have said before, as a nation we have become to "civilized" to wage war.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 3:59:20 PM EST
I just feel, no matter what we do, there is no stopping some extemist from strapping on a vest with a ton of explosive, and killing a buch of people. The Israelis cant stop it. I do't think we would be able to, unless our gov't can read peoples minds. Unless there is a policy change, I dunno
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:02:55 PM EST
I don't know if it can ever be won, but it can certainly be lost.

We need to wake up, quit treating these assholes like criminals and recognize them for what they are.
That is an armed force bent on our destruction. It's us or them. Taking prisoners, negotiation and truces serve only to strengthen them.

They are a cancer on the earth. If we don't cut them out, they will consume us.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:05:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By shootemup:
I just feel, no matter what we do, there is no stopping some extemist from strapping on a vest with a ton of explosive, and killing a buch of people. The Israelis cant stop it. I do't think we would be able to, unless our gov't can read peoples minds. Unless there is a policy change, I dunno



So, if you don't think it is winnable, should we just give up and be more 'sensitive' like Kerry? Is that what you are getting at?
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:06:56 PM EST
Yes...If we fight it the way it needs to be fought.
Like A war.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:09:32 PM EST
the war on terrorism is not winnable. You cannot defeat a type of war.

The war on Radical Islam ( a group which uses the tactics of terrorism) is.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:10:17 PM EST
'If' the mindset is there, one shall always prevail. The question is, will the sheeple allow such a mindset for this battle?

IMO, not anytime soon, or soon enough.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:10:26 PM EST
Is the War On Terror "winnable"?


As in will it be able to be ended -- not in our lifetimes I am afraid. This is going to be a lifetime commitment.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:10:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

So, if you don't think it is winnable, should we just give up and be more 'sensitive' like Kerry? Is that what you are getting at?



Did I mention ANYTHING about giving up?!?!?. I just stated that there seems to be no foreseeable victory in sight. We're dealing with unrationable humans. And we can't just target a religous gropup to rid the world of a few sour grapes. How do you suggest we eliminate them? I seem to think what we are doing is right, just that this "war" is here for the duration.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:11:23 PM EST
Just as important, if not the MOST important thing we could do to win this war would be to use military pressure on those who support and harbor these pigs.
The pigs can't do much without money, or weapons or training or any other thing that allows them to carry out their cowardly acts.
Destroy any nation who offers this support and see what happens.
It would only take one for the others to get the message. Libya got the message.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:12:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 4:16:02 PM EST by AR-10]
I am thinking the same thing LARRYG is thinking (I think).

The question is moot.

Fight or die is the choice we have.



Edit to add;


President Bush has always been very careful to not give the impression that this struggle will take a year, or two, or five. He is thinking decades, but is also careful not to say that outright.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:34:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By shootemup:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

So, if you don't think it is winnable, should we just give up and be more 'sensitive' like Kerry? Is that what you are getting at?



Did I mention ANYTHING about giving up?!?!?. I just stated that there seems to be no foreseeable victory in sight. We're dealing with unrationable humans. And we can't just target a religous gropup to rid the world of a few sour grapes. How do you suggest we eliminate them? I seem to think what we are doing is right, just that this "war" is here for the duration.



There is a way, assuming you confine the WOT to groups that attack the USA (there's only oen -> AQ), their subsidiaries, and their root sponsors...

If you buy into the same lie that they do, and treat it as a religeous thing, you will lose just like Russia lost in A-stan and will probably lose in Chechnya.

If you go the liberal 'What did WE do to cause it way', you will end up attempting appeasement and lose that way.

The terror problem is like a disease. Al Queda & 'Islamisim' are just the 'symptoms'.

You have to treat the symptoms, for sure. This means AQ can never be allowed to settle in like they were in A-stan under Clinton. We have done this, and will continue to do so.

But to actually win the war you must cure the disease!

To do this, we must first CORRECTLY identify the disease.

ISLAM is NOT the disease, either as a whole or any one sect or group. In fact, we can completely ignore religeon for the purpose of identifying it.

So stow your pig carcasses & swine bombs, if you really believe Islam is the problem you've been duped...

The disease that causes the 'Symptoms' of AQ terrorisim is manifest in the governments that rule the countries from which the terrorists come!!!!

It is, not suprisingly, secular totalitarianisim...

The cure is revolution or liberation.

THE ONLY WAY TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR (AQ) IS TO TOPPLE EVERY LAST ARAB GOVERNMENT (PLUS A FEW NON-ARAB CONTRIBUTING STATES (er IRAN)) & REPLACE IT WITH A FREE, ELECTED & CONSTIUTIONALLY GOVERNED REGEIME

Not neccicarily by military force, but in some cases that may be required. Local revolution is the preferrable method, with assistance given if needed. If military force is used, limited war is mandatory - Russian style brutality in even ONE operation, even ONE MISSION may well cost us the whole enchilada.

It may be hard, it may be agrivating, but we cannot bomb mosques, burn cities to the ground, and make asses of ourselves and still expect to be seen as 'liberators, not occupiers' (intentional Zel Miller Quote)....

So all you idiots who thought we should go ARCLITE on Falujah & Najaf, congrats, if you were in charge you would have cost us the whole WOT right theere!

Russia did that in Grozny (razed the city with mass artillery and airstrikes), and did it help them any? Did they win the war? NO, 300 dead kids says it was a clumsy, boneheadedly STUPID clusterfuck that only an unprofessional 3rd world conscript army would make.... The worst part about is is they used the same STUPID tactics in Afganhistan, and got sent packing by a bunch of barely-trained Arab terrorists with 'borrowed' Stinger missiles & old British Einfelds.... Leave it to the Russians to be the only modern army to ever loose a war to Arabs.... Boneheads!

There is a role for the UN if they want it, however they will most likely remain on the 'wrong' side, maintaining their traditional belief that no sovreign government deserves to be overthrown by internal or external force, no mater how monsterous it may be. As you would expect, they are not to be trusted.

It will take time, the amount of time required will depend upon how many governments we need to overthrow, and how many fall under their own dead weight.

But if executed properly, this method will win the war on terror.

Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:41:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-10:
I am thinking the same thing LARRYG is thinking (I think).

The question is moot.

Fight or die is the choice we have.



Edit to add;


President Bush has always been very careful to not give the impression that this struggle will take a year, or two, or five. He is thinking decades, but is also careful not to say that outright.



President Bush knows excatly what it will take to win thsi war.

He has been very clear about it in his recent speaches.

Democratization of the Middle East is the only way to win, just like collapse of the USSR & democratization/capitalization of Russia was the only way to win the Cold War without exterminating humanity....

Listen to Thursday's speech again. This is EXACTLY the path he is planning to persue, and it is the ONLY one that will work.

But the pork-skin, Muslims are evil backwards savages, kill 'em all crowd can't seem to get it thru their thick, boneheaded skulls...

They treat this like it's some street brawl, not an organized professional military campaign.

Fortunately, unlike Russia, the USA does not do street brawls. We fight professionally, and because of this we WIN consistantly.

The advantages of having the both the world's most powerful and most professional military, you see...

When you fight like savages, don't be suprised if your enemy does too... The Russians and Chechens are both living proof of this principle, and have both applied it to eachother as long as they have been fighting...
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 4:53:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 5:05:23 PM EST by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By shootemup:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

So, if you don't think it is winnable, should we just give up and be more 'sensitive' like Kerry? Is that what you are getting at?



Did I mention ANYTHING about giving up?!?!?. I just stated that there seems to be no foreseeable victory in sight. We're dealing with unrationable humans. And we can't just target a religous gropup to rid the world of a few sour grapes. How do you suggest we eliminate them? I seem to think what we are doing is right, just that this "war" is here for the duration.



Well, the choices are win or give up. If you don't think it is winnable, might as well give up.

My idea on how to eliminate them would get my account locked.

I believe that a Muslim, any Muslim, will be your best buddy until it is time to slit your throat. Some will decry me saying this, but it is what I believe.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 5:03:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 5:43:23 PM EST
I feel we made a mistake in Vietnam by fighting a limited war of containment with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Who is in power now? The North Vietnamese. I feel we made a mistake of not taking the first Gulf War all the way to Sadamm which ultimately led to us dealing with him again the second time.

Are we making a mistake in fighting a limited war in Iraq this time by not actively taking the fight to places like Najaf and Fallujah? It is my opinion that we are. Time will tell because that is the route we have chosen.

Do I believe that Islam as it is now is inherently evil? Yes. This is probably the biggest area Dave_A and I disagree. I believe Islam has led to the type of leaders who exist throughout the Islamic world. He believes those corrupt leaders have if not created at least fostered the radical Islam we see today. Do I believe we should exterminate all Arabs and Muslims? No. It is necessary to convince our enemies that they have been defeated and so far our limited sensitive war has not succeeded in convincing our enemies that they are.

It is not necessary to fight a brutal, barbarous war as the Russians have done. Barbarity simply reinforces the resolve of your enemy much as 9/11 and the Russian school attack have done and pretty much guarantees that any of your own who are captured will be dealt with harshly.

If I were making the call I would locate a source of these enemies and hold them accountable by whatever means are necessary. One by one taking out whatever is seen as a threat in a convincing manner. Rebuild and hopefully re-educate, move to the next hostile country and repeat the process.

The fact that almost every single Islamic country relies upon the church (Wahabism comes to mind) to educate has led to a particularly violent form of Islam. Most Islamic learning is by wrote requiring little critical thinking. A simple look at any Islamic forum here for example will show these people will believe just about anything they are fed by their teachers.

If we can physically defeat these people and allow them to see through education and rebuilding like we did in Europe and Japan after WWII the benefits of an open society just maybe. If you look across the world few countries that have open access to information have a desire to fight their neighbors.

Destroy, rebuild, re-educate. Who knows maybe it would only take a few examples before the rest falls in line.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 5:51:15 PM EST
The "WOT" is really a war against a specific ideology, namely Islamic extremism. It's more diplomatic to avoid naming the true objective. And yes, it can be won, though it will take decades.

The problem is dysfunctional societies that produce death cultists. Solving the problem involves changing the society that produces the sickness. Simply killing OBL won't win the war, since he's merely a symptom and figurehead of the underlying movement.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 5:54:30 PM EST
Here's a poll I did about this last week: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=269547
Top Top