Osama Bin Laden Killed By U.S. Bomb In Pakistan (4 Viewers)

[Louis Badolato]

Both religions have enough doctrine to justify it's followers use of violence. I try not to sit near anyone that can't converse without constant reference to their respective deities.

I'm with you.:wink2:

 

[Mitch]

top and the bottom of this discussion is that terrorism will never be defeated. No military might has ever won a battle against insurgents or terrorists. It only takes one distorted retard with a bomb vest and a distorted view of the quran or, a home born terrorist like the oklahoma bomber and, a shoppoing center or mall and... disaster.

I think there is only one way to win (though many see this not as a win) and nobody seems to want to go down that road.
Mitch

 

[VIRIATO]

I think there is only one way to win (though many see this not as a win) and nobody seems to want to go down that road.
Mitch

Mitch, could you be more specific?


Paulo

 

[Napoleon1er]

Both religions have enough doctrine to justify it's followers use of violence. I try not to sit near anyone that can't converse without constant reference to their respective deities.

Sounds good to me!{bravo}}
-Sandor:salute::

 

[Scott]

Come on Paulo....YOU know..................

 

[VIRIATO]

Come on Paulo....YOU know..................

Scott, all I know is that I know nothing^&grin (wasn't it Plato that said this one?).

Cheers,
Paulo

 

[lancer]

Scott, all I know is that I know nothing^&grin (wasn't it Plato that said this one?).

Cheers,
Paulo

I'm sure that was Sgt. Shultz.^&grin -- Al

 

[thebritfarmer]

I'm sure that was Sgt. Shultz.^&grin -- Al

Manuel also said it (Fawlty Towers)

 

[Rutledge]

top and the bottom of this discussion is that terrorism will never be defeated. No military might has ever won a battle against insurgents or terrorists. It only takes one distorted retard with a bomb vest and a distorted view of the quran or, a home born terrorist like the oklahoma bomber and, a shoppoing center or mall and... disaster.

I think there is only one way to win (though many see this not as a win) and nobody seems to want to go down that road.
Mitch

Military might has never won a battle against insurgents? Surely you jest. There are many, many examples where the US military has defeated terrorists quite throughly in battle, all over Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, the odiouis OBL inside Pakistan.

Terrorists can only win waht we let them. They will never dominate us by sitting on top of the white house waving ak-47s. They can create offensive disruptions. That is about it. Not to diminish, at all, the pain of those who directly suffered in the events of 9/11. Those were horrible events. But in the big scheme of things the idea of our surrender to the perpetrators was never even a remote possibility, quite obviously.

If we say, oh no, we cannot defeat terrorism. Thus we must cater to the terrorists' demands. Pretty soon you have terrorists on every street corner, insisting their cause is great and we all had better...or else. Completely unworkable.

There will always be disgrunteld people. No new world order will ever change that. We can only proceede with what has worked so well for the last 200 plus years: the application of the rule of law based on our founding documents within a democratic republic.

 

[Mitch]

Rutledge...

I do not jest. In Iraq the military might did not eradicate this threat and, even after that last surge there are still terroists or whatever you want to call them acting in Iraq. so, thats not a won battle. In Afghanistan insurgents and Taliban may be getting hit hard though, we must not just think its an american action as the allies including the brits fighting in some of the worst parts of Afghan are doing well, but, we are not stopping attacks or, in any sense about to win.

I think there seems to be a belief that the Bin Lid killing has somehow ended the terror threat.. It has not as I said in a previous post about the impact it has not ended the war, it has not brought the troops home or, indeed made the streets of the US, UK etc safer.

As I said no military can ever defeat a terroist ideaology as its just that an ideology which, influences non combatants to use tactics which, no military unit can ever stop or, protect civillian targets from this type of attack.

It may diminish the threat in open combat against say the taliban but, the real terrorist threat comes far away from the battlefields of Afghanistan etc

I think everyone from the terroists to the politicians fighting them know it cannot be stopped and we cannot win. They may not want to tell us we cannot win for whatever reason but, we will never eradicate the ideology that hates the west so much. In the UK we could not defeat the IRA so, I am sorry if it offends US posters but, the US and its allies will not beat these extremists and, to some extent, non extremist muslims who act against us. That does not mean we should not fight them but, recent history in Iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere shows there is no quick win. We can have local wins and wins like killing Bin Lid or catching saddam and killing his sons but, IMO that does not mean we have won.
Mitch

Military might has never won a battle against insurgents? Surely you jest. There are many, many examples where the US military has defeated terrorists quite throughly in battle, all over Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, the odiouis OBL inside Pakistan.

Terrorists can only win waht we let them. They will never dominate us by sitting on top of the white house waving ak-47s. They can create offensive disruptions. That is about it. Not to diminish, at all, the pain of those who directly suffered in the events of 9/11. Those were horrible events. But in the big scheme of things the idea of our surrender to the perpetrators was never even a remote possibility, quite obviously.

If we say, oh no, we cannot defeat terrorism. Thus we must cater to the terrorists' demands. Pretty soon you have terrorists on every street corner, insisting their cause is great and we all had better...or else. Completely unworkable.

There will always be disgrunteld people. No new world order will ever change that. We can only proceede with what has worked so well for the last 200 plus years: the application of the rule of law based on our founding documents within a democratic republic.

 

[Scott]

I mentioned it before. You have to colonize and out populate. I don't think that will happen with Middle Eastern territories. It did work in the Americas and Australia.

The ONION had a gag headline once..."As an American I am sick and tired of other countries!" I'd like to see a time when we only see and hear of these places and people in National Geographic.

 

[Rutledge]

Rutledge...

I do not jest. In Iraq the military might did not eradicate this threat and, even after that last surge there are still terroists or whatever you want to call them acting in Iraq. so, thats not a won battle. In Afghanistan insurgents and Taliban may be getting hit hard though, we must not just think its an american action as the allies including the brits fighting in some of the worst parts of Afghan are doing well, but, we are not stopping attacks or, in any sense about to win.

I think there seems to be a belief that the Bin Lid killing has somehow ended the terror threat.. It has not as I said in a previous post about the impact it has not ended the war, it has not brought the troops home or, indeed made the streets of the US, UK etc safer.

As I said no military can ever defeat a terroist ideaology as its just that an ideology which, influences non combatants to use tactics which, no military unit can ever stop or, protect civillian targets from this type of attack.

It may diminish the threat in open combat against say the taliban but, the real terrorist threat comes far away from the battlefields of Afghanistan etc

I think everyone from the terroists to the politicians fighting them know it cannot be stopped and we cannot win. They may not want to tell us we cannot win for whatever reason but, we will never eradicate the ideology that hates the west so much. In the UK we could not defeat the IRA so, I am sorry if it offends US posters but, the US and its allies will not beat these extremists and, to some extent, non extremist muslims who act against us. That does not mean we should not fight them but, recent history in Iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere shows there is no quick win. We can have local wins and wins like killing Bin Lid or catching saddam and killing his sons but, IMO that does not mean we have won.
Mitch

Of course Mitch. The US did not defeat Japan after Guadalcanal, Peleliu and Tarawa. Should we then have thrown up our hands and said, well, its just too tough, these Japanese are hard to beat, we cant do it? History says we were correct in continuing the campaign.

Iraq is as won as it will ever get. If they want to keep killing each other, that is on them. If it comes back toward us, aggressively, we will do what we have to do - up to and including using our most serious weapons.

It took many consecutive defeats for Japan to see the writing on the wall. The same is true with the terrorists. Will every disgruntled person be happy at the end? Of course not. But if the leadership and network is destroyed, that goes a long way. Terrorist organizations are not so different than any other. They need financing, they need leaders, they need structure, they need CAREER Paths for goodness sake. What we have is a war of attrition. They have fewer of everything than us (except dummies willing to suicide themselves, and the Japanese proved that strategy couldnt turn the tide)

Obama and everyone else said immediately after that while OBL was dead, AQ was not. We are not naieve.

But what is this "we cannot win"? That implies all we can do is lose. It may be your perspective but it is not ours. Of course we may never get a signed treaty. Its hard when there are no actual "states" involved. But the taliban/AQ alliance is not invincible - or is it? Is that what you really believe? I hope not.

There has not been a successful terrorist attack on american soil in nearly 10 years. Id say that is pretty good evidence US streets are indeed safer than if we had not fought back. Especially as no telling how many attacks have been foiled by the security agencies. By bringing the fight TO the terrorists, in their lands, we have largely taken away their ability to conduct operations in ours.

If it doesnt stop at some point, or they start using WMDs against us, it could definitely get uglier. That scenario is plausible, if not likely.

The bottom line is we will do whatever it takes to defend our way of life. If that means fighting the terrorists for another 50 years, so be it. If nothing else, at some point our technological advantage will be so great that will effectively end it.

 

[VIRIATO]

If the objective is nation building in the Middle East, I am afraid failure is just around the corner when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Different cultures and civilizations, different history, you just don't change that to Western style democracies with gun power, IMHO. The Japan example is a good one though, but those were different circunstances, times and different people.
All IMHO of course, what do I know^&grin?

Paulo

 

[Phantom Warrior]

top and the bottom of this discussion is that terrorism will never be defeated. No military might has ever won a battle against insurgents or terrorists. It only takes one distorted retard with a bomb vest and a distorted view of the quran or, a home born terrorist like the oklahoma bomber and, a shoppoing center or mall and... disaster.

I think there is only one way to win (though many see this not as a win) and nobody seems to want to go down that road.
Mitch

How about the Brits in Malasia - they beat the guerillas. And the IRA didn't win. I'm sure there are other examples.

Terry

 

[Scott]

The examples of successes still involve a colonial power or conquering power subduing "the locals." Algeria in the 1960s comes to mind. Possibly the Philippines early in the 1900s. 9/11, Madrid, and London are examples of insurgents projecting attacks back to the homelands of those that they feel oppressed them. (The IRA was able to do that as well.) The Madrid and London attacks happened after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Spanish opted out and changed government more because of the perception of government lying on where the attack came from.

 

[theBaron]

I have to disagree that 9/11, Madrid and London are attacks by insurgents striking back at colonial powers. They are attacks by fanatics following Wahabi Islam, striking out against the West. We are not their only targets, either. They have killed far more Muslims than they have non-Muslims. Their goal is to kill anyone who does not believe as they do, and establish a world-wide state based on their view of the world. Colonialism has little, if anything, to do with it.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Their goal is to kill anyone who does not believe as they do, and establish a world-wide state based on their view of the world.

Scary, isn't it. Their goal is pretty much identical to that of the Nazi's. Fanaticism in all its many forms is an ugly thing.

 

[Scott]

I have to disagree that 9/11, Madrid and London are attacks by insurgents striking back at colonial powers. They are attacks by fanatics following Wahabi Islam, striking out against the West. We are not their only targets, either. They have killed far more Muslims than they have non-Muslims. Their goal is to kill anyone who does not believe as they do, and establish a world-wide state based on their view of the world. Colonialism has little, if anything, to do with it.

In the earlier cases there were colonial powers involved in successful and unsuccessful efforts to stop rebellions. The three attacks I referenced above were as I said, attacks on those they thought were oppressing them. While WE might say what did WE do? THEY would say support of Israel, oil, etc. Now I don't care OR agree with what THEY think. (They didn't ask me anyway.) The middle east only has a natural resource and hasn't had any new thoughts on science, literature, or culture in 100s of years. Their brand of religion really holds them back while the secular ideas of the west have pulled the teeth from much the destructiveness of western religion. Perhaps the middle east needs it's own Reformation and Enlightenment. There is certainly a large population of young people that needs to redefine their own culture without seeing the west as a threat and uniting that way.

I would propose some change in energy sources that makes having to deal with these people unnecessary other than tourism. Why waste lives and treasure swatting mosquitoes in swamp when you don't have to go to the swamp. Of course you have to keep your guard up.

 

[Scott]

Scary, isn't it. Their goal is pretty much identical to that of the Nazi's. Fanaticism in all its many forms is an ugly thing.

Right. So let's not go there either. Christianity was spread by the sword and colonialism. What's scarey was that recently the Rwandan genocide was a Christian on Christian fight. My wife went to see a talk by one of the people who saw apparitions of Mary at Međugorje in Bosnia but she didn't know that Međugorje was center of ethic cleansing in the 90s. I mention religion because Communism expansion was the obvious and expected fanaticism or our time.

 

[Rutledge]

Right. So let's not go there either. Christianity was spread by the sword and colonialism. What's scarey was that recently the Rwandan genocide was a Christian on Christian fight. My wife went to see a talk by one of the people who saw apparitions of Mary at Međugorje in Bosnia but she didn't know that Međugorje was center of ethic cleansing in the 90s. I mention religion because Communism expansion was the obvious and expected fanaticism or our time.

Maybe it's just my Southern upbringing. But it seems to me that it would be common courtesy not to be constantly haranguing christianity on a site run by a pastor and his wife. And I am by no means a religious person.