• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

I was referring to the whole "this is how we beat Nazi Germany and Japan" thing you were talking about. We didn't beat them by a 30:1 bombing ratio. It was much more than complicated than that.

Modern warfare describes weapons and tactics that have come about during and after World War 2. Hence my comment. What Hamas is doing is in fact engaging in modern warfare because they are engaged in battle with the IDF and utilizing modern assault rifles, some Russian anti-tank missiles like the Sagger, anti-tank and anti-personnel land mines, remote detonated IED's, a small quantity of Russian man portable Surface to Air missiles, RPG's, grenades, and modern urban warfare tactics. Yes they are using Qassam rockets, which are truly rudimentary by modern standards, but that is just one piece of equipment they are using. Just because Israel truly outclasses them in weaponology and tactics doesn't mean this isn't modern warfare.

This is part of the problem when it comes to debating topics like this. The devil is in the details. Details will sneak up on you.

(Not sure about the spelling here) Tsun Tsu/ The Art of War should be required reading before anyone can go to war.It issues a level of respect that I`m sure would limit "over kill",situations,and place elements of human dignity on the battle fronts. I`ve not studied this in-depth what I have read of it is interesating, and again places elements of dignity,and implies limits in battle.Right?/ Wrong?
 
I believe we must continue to carry the fight directly to the extremists. We must take direct action to combat them otherwise we abandon our citizens and our other interests to the extremists and allow them to operate against us at their leisure. We cannot allow that.


very good so far.


However, it is our very recent use of big stick/cowboy militaristic tactics in the Middle East (as well as our past addiction to influencing the governments of other nations to our way of thinking regardless of the costs to the people of those nations) that have hindered our ability to actually gain significant ground on the core issues behind the formation and growth of extremist terror cells.


Here I must say I see an ambiguous ideal with no real solution. How do you propose we do that.

We tried the "police action" method of Clinton, this partially, along with actions and inactions of previous administrations helped give us 911....


Now I realize I'm going to garner the cat calls of the "you liberals just want to blame America" and that's fine. It's typical ignorant group think like that which keeps partisan politics alive and well here at DP and abroad. But the fact is that America does have a long standing historical stake in the way things have unfolded in the Middle East (as well as many other regions of the world). We are not solely to blame of course, much of Europe as well as the Middle Eastern governments themselves share equally in the credit for what has become of the Middle East. All were forces in shaping the region and fertilizing the ground for growth of extremist elements. The invasion of Iraq was just the culmination of decades of ignorance or simple disregard for the geopolitical dynamics of the region. It was going to be our way or the highway. We were right, they were wrong. However we weren't really right and our actions gave birth to a whole new generation of extremists.


if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.


Given that the oil for food program had hussein and the UN, france, etc all getting huge kick backs while blaming the US for starving muslims in Iraq, could you explain how the status quo would help our image in the middle east.

We aren't just fighting an idealism, we are fighting the ghosts of past failures as well. The idealism is a very real dynamic of this "War on Terror" in that it is a primary fuel for what drives our enemy and we, as Americans...as Westerners...cannot defeat it. WE CANNOT DEFEAT IT. It's not tangible, we cannot bomb it away. It has to die out though moderate evolution of the geopolitical situation in the region. Take a look at the mentality of Al Qaeda for prima facia evidence of what I say. They took years to plot, plan, train, and finally execute their attacks. We not only have long standing, deep rooted terror cells acting out...we have a whole new class of recruits that are just as motivated to kill and destroy. They can look back out our history, the history they know (not what we are contented to tell ourselves about ourselves) and find plenty of reason to lash out. We trained and supported men who exploited their own people for the benefit of themselves and their paymasters...the U.S. and Europe. Combine this history with the very real and very distinct religious differences of the region and you have some extremely volatile ingredients...that we ignored. That we continue to gloss over and not talk about because it "undermines the war effort" and it's "liberal apologistics."


I see a lot of complaining again. However I would like to ask, how you see a solution, what would it entail?

So far I got from you, and correct me if I am wrong, is that we are doing it wrong, we can not win.

I heartily disagree, I cannot see us giving up and sucking our thumbs. see in your 1st paragraph you say we have to take it to them, now you say we can not win.

Can you explain this?



We are right in taking the fight to our enemy, they are trying to kill us. But we cannot continue to walk around with this cowboy swagger and simply say "**** 'em, bring it on!" We have to act with discretion, we have to act with caution, and we have to make sure we get it right. We cannot afford to continue making monumental blunder in foreign policy at the tip of a bayonet

Again ambiguous in what we have to do. are you suggesting we go back to the clinton years of running from somalis and flacid responses to terrorist responses?

How is this a solution?



Being a patriot is loving one's country and doing what is best for it. Self-examination and coming to terms with our past transgressions is the only way we can ever hope to not repeat those mistakes in the future. That is not being "un patriotic" yet it's very frequently inferred. The invasion of Iraq was not all that long ago when you compare that time line to the backdrop of our historical involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. At some point we as a nation have got to stand up to the hawks among us who decry "patriotism" and shout down those that don't agree with them calling them "traitor, terrorist sympathizers, and apologists." It's not a conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat thing. It's an American thing and we've got to get a hold of it or we can look forward to decades more of the same old same old.



kinda a strawman, who is calling you a traitor?


And once again, what is your actual solution. there is a lot of ambiguous general ideas, but no concrete solutions as usual.


If you all think you can do it better, how come we have not heard how all these years?
 
Thirty rockets blanketing a civilian occupied area where a single rocket came from is the definition of overkill. Indiscriminate carpet bombing in retaliation for a single rocket launch is a terrorist tactic. If Israeli soldiers were taking fire from a single sniper from an apartment building occupied by 200 civilians and in response fired rockets into the building through every window then went in and shot numerous people because they might be an escaping sniper...and said "oh well, too bad, the civilians were in the area and they had to go." That would be a terrorist act in response to the situation. Indiscriminate killing. What is the difference? You don't blanket a populated urban area with rockets to get a couple of guys. It's bad ju ju.


You aren't a student of modern warfare are you?

I can agree with this.




Is Isreal doing any of what you say above? can you provide links?

Thanks.
 
Is Isreal doing any of what you say above? can you provide links?

Thanks.

No, I was replying to the comments from two posters who said "for every rocket Hamas fires, Israel should fire 30 back."
 
very good so far.
Thank you.

Here I must say I see an ambiguous ideal with no real solution. How do you propose we do that.
It's not so much ambiguous as it is simply a broad statement of truth about the overall history of our actions. It's succinct. I wasn't inferring a solution with this, just making commentary. But a very good start would have been "not invade Iraq for no justifiable reason." And "don't let corporate endeavors influence our foreign policy relating to regime changes, invasions, and covert action." Those are two off the top of my head.

We tried the "police action" method of Clinton, this partially, along with actions and inactions of previous administrations helped give us 911....
By past administrations you are obviously including Reagan, Bush Sr., Carter, Truman, Eisenhower, et. al. Read some John Lewis Gaddis sometime and you will begin to see how the U.S. projection of influence throughout the world impacted the geopolitical environment to the point that we now have an entire sub-culture whose purpose is to destroy the west. When you back leaders who sacrifice the lives and livelihood of their own citizens to protect corporate interests of western nations and ensure their own base of power through ruthless dictatorial practices you breed generations of resentment. This goes back decades.

if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.
I didn't say you did, I merely anticipated a reaction that has already played out here with your post #25. Exactly how hard do you try "not to do that?" 10 was clearly lamenting our actions and how they have inflamed the resentment towards our nation. You called her post "whiny liberal blame America nonsense."

This is whiny liberal blame America nonsense, perhaps if they attacked your friends and family you would feel different. who knows. :roll:

Given that the oil for food program had hussein and the UN, france, etc all getting huge kick backs while blaming the US for starving muslims in Iraq, could you explain how the status quo would help our image in the middle east.
Well first of all, I have not endorsed the U.N. action in Iraq. It was corrupt and ineffective. The sanctions on Iraq were so poorly mismanaged and such a bad idea to begin with that the only people who actually suffered were the citizens. Hussein's military was stifled and no longer a threat to anyone outside their own region. That was not a result of the sanctions, that was the severe ass beating they took at the hands of the coalition. The sanctions prevented him from building an offensive capability that would make him a regional threat, but his stranglehold on his people was very much in tact. He insured this by funneling much of the resources that made it past the sanctions to his own military and police. He took care of his first. The real victims of the sanctions were the Iraqi people.

I never said we could hope to bat a thousand, but we don't have to settle for batting sub one hundreds either. We are going to be criticized, but that is no reason to just say "screw it, they are blaming us anyway." The sanctions were a bad idea the way they were enforced. The U.N. did a piss poor job of running that show from the top down. Anyone could have seen that Saddam was going to keep his military going if only to maintain his own power base, the citizen could starve to death for all he cared. When you have literally billions of dollars flowing with little to no honest, competent oversight the probability of wide spread corruption is going to go through the roof. It was a bad plan from the start and the U.S. was integral to implementing it.

I see a lot of complaining again. However I would like to ask, how you see a solution, what would it entail?
Complaining? Your partisanship is shining through again. There is no complaining here. There is observation and commentary. Not whining. I'll give you my ideas for how we can make progress but I would appreciate some actual thought being put into your responses as opposed to the all too typical "whiny liberal" or "you're just complaining" responses.

I don't have a "solution" otherwise I wouldn't be here on Debate Politics sparring with the likes of you. I would be off brokering peace and winning the Nobel. But I am very well read about the subject so I can give some learned insight on this subject.

I can and often do take the time to refer back to our mistakes, it's part of the learning process. It's not complaining, especially when we continue to make them. The typical response to the radical Islamic problem is to raise our fist and declare war. "We will hunt them where they live and kill them right there"..."Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"...and "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." We can start by understanding that Arab nations can't make the easy decision of being "with us or with the terrorists." Especially when we are just coming off of a very rough eight years of George W. Bush diplomacy (or lack thereof). Many Arab nations, if not all, don't trust us one inch. They view every effort we make as having strings attached that lead to claymores. It's an extremely convoluted situation that will require several instances of trying and failing, trying again, and hopefully an inch of progress at a time. We have to do this if we are to actually address the root problems and counter the core threat. And that threat lies in the radical madrassas and mosques that are found in so many Muslim nations throughout the Middle East and other regions for that matter. It's the ideology bread from fundamentalist clerics who pervert the religion and decades of bad western foreign policy. It's in the living conditions that make so many young Muslims at risk candidates for these radicals to swoop in and influence.

We have to back up and re-examine just how infectious corporatism is in U.S. foreign policy. We have to dedicate serious resources to assisting Muslim nations whose governments are actively trying to contain the spread of radical Islamic influence. That doesn't mean we just funnel guns and tanks to them, it means we make sure we examine their methodology for dealing with the problem and if it appears they are exacerbating the situation we stimulate them to change course, not by military might or covert action, but by being disciplined with our aid packages and trade agreements. We speak up, even against our allies, if they are obviously making the situation worse. We put the focus back on the local geopolitical environment and we assist where we are invited, not where we think we have a reason to. We no longer dangle carrots in front of dictators for as a means of ensuring influence in a region. We don't dictate. We don't just swing a big stick. You know, all those things we have historically done. We are talking about a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy. Not just with Muslim nations, but with every foreign nation.

So far I got from you, and correct me if I am wrong, is that we are doing it wrong, we can not win.
No problem...I'll correct you. You are wrong. You obviously place this thing in very basic, black and white terms. And that is your problem. That is why you quickly react by calling people out as wanting to surrender, being whiny, or complaining all the while avoiding giving any substantial commentary of your own. Now either you are taking pot shots from the bleachers or you really don't have any clue as to root causes of the problems or the possible methods to mitigate them. In either case your lack of serious contribution leaves you in a very exposed position within this debate.

I heartily disagree, I cannot see us giving up and sucking our thumbs. see in your 1st paragraph you say we have to take it to them, now you say we can not win.

Can you explain this?
Yet here again is an example of you not understanding the problem. You gave me a clear glimpse into your mindset with your "I'm not concerned about the idealism" comment early on. You are content to swat flies and ignore the dung pile they are swarming around. Radical Islamic fundamentalists are born of a culture, a culture that has taken years to root and manifest itself in these groups we are fighting. We, as Americans, as Westerners, as infidels, cannot defeat a culture like this with bullets, smart bombs, and guided missiles. It's impossible. Why? Because until we figure out a way to help moderate Muslims assimilate at risk Muslims into a more tolerant and peaceful culture we will simply reinforce their desire to destroy us with every one of them we kill. You see, they don't view themselves as terrorists like we do. They come from a life embroiled in years of repression and misery, constant indoctrination by clerics who beat it into their skulls that we are blame for what has become of their sacred land. Their religion, their sovereignty as a nation is everything to them. Our influence in their affairs has had a negative impact upon their lives, either by our supporting a dictator, subverting their religious culture, or bombing their infrastructure into the stone ages. You name it, we've done it. We can't fix it. They have to fix it. We have stop running around the middle east blowing stuff up because every time we do it we energize the radical element, we give them ammunition to recruit. The at risk sector of the Muslim community in that region don't are not just pre-disposed to take a western view of the actions of Al Qaeda and Hamas. To many of them, those groups are held up as champions, lashing out at the west, the west that has impacted their lives in such a horrible way. You cannot defeat idealism. It has to be changed over time. I'm not saying we don't act when we have to, but we can't embark upon broad military action, sweeping up suspected individuals and sending them off to secret prisons or just killing them in the field. We are right now considered invaders and occupiers of Muslim lands. Whether you or I like that moniker that is what the majority of Islamic nation thinks of us. Do you see where this is not helping a situation that already had decades to take root and spread?

To be continued and subject to editing as I'm sure I've made some grammar and spelling flubs.....
 
Last edited:
Again ambiguous in what we have to do. are you suggesting we go back to the clinton years of running from somalis and flacid responses to terrorist responses?

How is this a solution?

What exactly do you think I'm trying to present with my comments? Where am I inferring that I have a solution? I'm offering a counter to your gung ho mentality of bombing the **** out anything that isn't on our team. Did I even suggest running from them? No, in fact I think I said...
Me said:
We are right in taking the fight to our enemy, they are trying to kill us. But we cannot continue to walk around with this cowboy swagger and simply say "**** 'em, bring it on!" We have to act with discretion, we have to act with caution, and we have to make sure we get it right. We cannot afford to continue making monumental blunder in foreign policy at the tip of a bayonet
Suggesting discretion in when and where we use force is not implying surrender. Again this gets back to this "you are with us or against us" mentality. If someone suggests anything other than the current course of action (which isn't helping the situation) they are somehow suggesting surrender, sitting on our hands, or giving up.

kinda a strawman, who is calling you a traitor?
Nobody, I'm commenting on a prevalent attitude that runs throughout America, particularly on the extreme right. It's reared it's ugly head here before. I'm just revisiting the issue.

And once again, what is your actual solution. there is a lot of ambiguous general ideas, but no concrete solutions as usual.
Hell, I'm still waiting on you to offer an idea that consists of more than three sentences and doesn't involve criticizing someone else for not fixing the Middle East.

If you all think you can do it better, how come we have not heard how all these years?
I don't know if I could do it better, and I'm not a member of Congress, a high ranking theater commander, or the President. So it's irrelevant. I have however studied the issues in depth and read many works on the subject...from both sides, trying to understand how we got where we are. I understand that human beings, not necessarily monsters, are involved on both sides of the situation. If I can apply some of what I have learned and see the mistakes that have so clearly been made here and understand why we shouldn't have done what we did, I don't think it's beyond our grasp to fix. Am I the guy to do that? No, probably not. But there are people out there who have some damn good ideas if they were given a fighting chance. Of course, as I said before, when billions of dollars are at stake, politics has a funny way of failing the people.

Now let me take a page from your play book and demand a solution from you.
 
(Not sure about the spelling here) Tsun Tsu/ The Art of War should be required reading before anyone can go to war.It issues a level of respect that I`m sure would limit "over kill",situations,and place elements of human dignity on the battle fronts. I`ve not studied this in-depth what I have read of it is interesating, and again places elements of dignity,and implies limits in battle.Right?/ Wrong?

War is never honorable nor dignified. It's always brutal and it always very ugly. Good people on both sides die, sometimes for no reason. Victory is simply a term embraced by the victor. If nations have to engage in war then the people have already lost. The only question is who gets to write the post-war historical accounting with a favorable slant.
 
Last edited:
Stupid 25 minute edit timer. :3oops:
 
Lerxst, I read you long post, and yes it's good to look at the past mistakes. But the mentality around here has been to use it as a political baseball bat to blacken the opponents eye. Frankly I don't think anyone's foreign policy has been worth copying, but I'm afraid that is exact what Obama will do. Playing appeaser will not win any foreign policy victories anymore than the use of force. Furthermore, dealing with a group of people that have "Destroy Israel" as the first bullet on their foreign policy agenda makes it rather difficult to sit down and talk. The corruption in our own govt has been a source for our foreign policy problems.
 
Stupid 25 minute edit timer. :3oops:



:lol: that's because you take too long to post. ;)




Reading through your responses again you make assumptions regarding my stance that simply are not true, I am not "Gung-Ho" or however you put it. I however see that what we did in the past has bore this fruit you speak of. Yes we backed the very people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and it would be easy and short sighted to say this however without mentioning the Cold War ramifications of the past.

You speak to the west's involvment in the ME as the sole cause, as if radical Islam does not attack its own, as if Bin Laden for example states in his letter to America that Clinton gettin a hummer is one of the reasons they attack us, and for them to stop, we must "come to Islam"...


There are many factors involved here, what I see a lack of however in your posts is the level of culpability of the other side. Perhaps you can speak to that as well.


As for you quoting my response to 10, this simply was a like response to her statement:

Everything we've done since all this began has strengthened our enemy, rather than weakening it.

See you asked me how I "try not to do that".... lets re-read my statment:

The Good Reverend said:
if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.


note the bolded part. I try not to call people out over emotions, or make baseless
accusations against other posters. I look for evidence before I call them out as prevaricators or anti-america, or anything else.

her post was a clear baseline for my astute response to her in kind.


Regarding your ad-hominen response:

Hell, I'm still waiting on you to offer an idea that consists of more than three sentences and doesn't involve criticizing someone else for not fixing the Middle East.


I believe this would be false. I have stated in more than "3 sentences", over and over again, like you that we need to "take it to the terrorists". I have also explained in detail how a mini cold war with the UN, france, germany, over iraqi oil and the worlds largest embezzlement scheme helped set the stage for the players in this war to come together.

I have also offered solutions in the past, and I see progress in Iraq, I see this war as winding down, I have friends serving in both theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. I see victory. I agree with Obama that more troops are needed in afghanistan......

More troops were needed on both fronts, Bush did not do this. A better strategy, IMO of a massive occupation would have shortened this war. There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.


Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people. Bush gave lip service to this. however he did not follow through. I am worried that Obama's assured pull back will only embolden the enemy at this point.

Which this latter is your position, that we can't go around bombing the ME or some such policy of non-engagment. At this point that would be disasterous for the peoples of the ME, give carte blanche to the savage terrorists to create talibans, and other extreme forms of government, and a safe haven for those who would do us harm., This is no solution.


Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..


Now I am no mathematician, but I count more than 3 sentences.... :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Is this going to be a conversation bet/ you and Lerxst, or can anyone get in this. If not, I'll shut up.
 
Lerxst, I read you long post, and yes it's good to look at the past mistakes. But the mentality around here has been to use it as a political baseball bat to blacken the opponents eye. Frankly I don't think anyone's foreign policy has been worth copying, but I'm afraid that is exact what Obama will do. Playing appeaser will not win any foreign policy victories anymore than the use of force. Furthermore, dealing with a group of people that have "Destroy Israel" as the first bullet on their foreign policy agenda makes it rather difficult to sit down and talk. The corruption in our own govt has been a source for our foreign policy problems.

If Obama makes the same mistakes as past Presidents then nothing will change. And I'm not convinced he won't. I simply hope he won't.
 
:lol: that's because you take too long to post. ;)

Reading through your responses again you make assumptions regarding my stance that simply are not true, I am not "Gung-Ho" or however you put it.
Our definition of Gung-Ho then is different. However later in this post I'll show you several examples within this thread of your expressing an attitude I consider to be Gung-Ho.

I however see that what we did in the past has bore this fruit you speak of. Yes we backed the very people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and it would be easy and short sighted to say this however without mentioning the Cold War ramifications of the past.
It's not just that, we have made several poor choices in the middle east, not the least of which is backing the wrong horse simply out of corporate/national greed. We've supported rebellions, coups, assassinations, wars, you name it.

You speak to the west's involvment in the ME as the sole cause, as if radical Islam does not attack its own, as if Bin Laden for example states in his letter to America that Clinton gettin a hummer is one of the reasons they attack us, and for them to stop, we must "come to Islam"...
I do no such thing. Where did I ever say that or even infer it? I think I was pretty clear about radical madrassas and mosques and clerics who pervert Islam. I think I was also clear about the living conditions of at risk Muslims that these cleric prey upon. About how these people suffer years of indoctrination under these religious zealots.

Poor people with no hope are ripe for deliverance. When you look at the social and economic conditions of much of the middle east you see the historical impact of western influence. The economic disparity is a key example here given the nature of Islamic politics/rule. We, along with many European nations, drew up geographical boundaries and empowered leaders that were conducive to our desire to control the region. Whether we actually cared about the people of the region or not is irrelevant at this point, what followed was decades of brutal rule in many nations. We didn't know much of anything about how things ran over there. The social, religious, political, economic factors were of little consequence. We needed leaders who would keep resources open to western markets. We made sure they had plenty of weapons and plenty of western capital. What we didn't make sure of is how they used them. In an area so deeply ingrained with religious influence you can't just expect non-Muslim or even secular policy or influence to spread like freedom and democracy and that good stuff we believe in.

We have been viewed, by many Muslims, as corrupting the fabric of the Islamic way of life with our influence in the middle east. When you come in and push the pendulum in one direction you are setting it up to swing the other way. We didn't even try to maintain a semblance of balance with our foreign policy. Ever. What we did, either unwittingly or with complete disregard, was create opportunity for radical Islam to foment because we (the west) simply didn't pay any attention to the way things were shaking out between the governments we backed and the people they were governing. Yes, radical Islamists were already there, we just made their jobs much easier.

Their goal is to get us out of the middle east, and yes...to extract revenge for decades of what they consider horrible transgressions against their very way of life. Right or wrong, that is what it boils down to. It matters little that you or I don't see our actions as malevolent or harmful, they do.

There are many factors involved here, what I see a lack of however in your posts is the level of culpability of the other side. Perhaps you can speak to that as well.
We have done nothing but blame the Islamists. I can dogpile that all day long but then I would just sound like all the others on here. I have recognized their culpability in this situation several times. However the first step to fixing this is recognizing our own and changing how we do business over there.

As for you quoting my response to 10, this simply was a like response to her statement:



See you asked me how I "try not to do that".... lets re-read my statment:




note the bolded part. I try not to call people out over emotions, or make baseless
accusations against other posters. I look for evidence before I call them out as prevaricators or anti-america, or anything else.

her post was a clear baseline for my astute response to her in kind.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your description of how that went down and stand by my statement, but whatever. Obviously we won't reach an agreement here.

Regarding your ad-hominen response:




I believe this would be false. I have stated in more than "3 sentences", over and over again, like you that we need to "take it to the terrorists". I have also explained in detail how a mini cold war with the UN, france, germany, over iraqi oil and the worlds largest embezzlement scheme helped set the stage for the players in this war to come together.

Let's take a look at a summary of your contribution here up to this point. Your individual posts are separated by ellipses but not numbered.
Post by RHH in this thread said:
Great job boys!
...........................
I guess winning the war here is no longer in vogue
...........................
nice 10, well while you surrender, thankfully most of us see this as a winnable war and something that needs to be done
............................
I am concentrating on obliterating Al Qaeda. not too concerned about the whole "war on an ideology" angle
............................
Hmm, Al Qaeda killed a member of my family and several friends, including NYPD and NYFD....


I strongly disagree with you.



Where you see futility, I see a target rich environment.
............................
yeah well war is hell.... I for one do not want to see another attack on American soil, and breaking up Al Qaeda is a big part of that.
............................
Muslims don't dig on swine those poor bastards
............................
So shall we convert to islam as well? what else do you reccommend?
............................
Nonsense, please show me with links and examples as to how al qaeda is strengthened.

This is whiny liberal blame America nonsense, perhaps if they attacked your friends and family you would feel different. who knows.
..............................
tell me why can't we win?
..............................
because they did not hate us when they flew airplanes into our buildings
..............................
I'd be more pissed at people who claim the same religion as me hiding behind my house launching attacks from my schools, shooting rockets from my churches....


that's who I would blame.
................................
ahh yes, lets praise him, praise the savior of America, lets praise him for bringing peace to the world... Lets praise him for ending war....

Lets praise him for promising 30k more troops.... oh wait.
...................................
that would make you a quitter and demonstrate the failure of "instant gratification"
..................................
I would? actually I'd probably drag the terrorists who are launching rockets from my shed out into the street and hang them as a warning to all of them that this is what happens when you bring your little jihad to my schools, towns, churches, backyards
..........................................
would you send them falafal and hookah? perhaps some lamb shemash
.........................................
You wouldnt? what would you do with the terrorists using your family as a shield?
.........................................
what about them terrorists using you as a shield? how long would you give them quarter?
.........................................
Seriously, you say killing these savages is bad, what is your solution.....



and I did have a great lamb shemash the other night..... delicious.
............................................
if you took them out first, you may not have to worry about the foreigners
...........................................
it is our business.
...........................................
so you believe we intefered without provocation?
...........................................
Hear! hear! you want jihad, you got it.
...........................................
no ****. it's called hyperbole..... if all my neighbors tolerated, some liked the terrorists and most feared them, stringing em up might just get me killed. And yes, these savages have no qualms about killing thier own. Which is another reason why dealing with it now is better than letting it fester and letting these people who have to live amongst this suffer in my opinion.
.............................................
very good so far.

Here I must say I see an ambiguous ideal with no real solution. How do you propose we do that.

We tried the "police action" method of Clinton, this partially, along with actions and inactions of previous administrations helped give us 911....


if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.


Given that the oil for food program had hussein and the UN, france, etc all getting huge kick backs while blaming the US for starving muslims in Iraq, could you explain how the status quo would help our image in the middle east.

I see a lot of complaining again. However I would like to ask, how you see a solution, what would it entail?

So far I got from you, and correct me if I am wrong, is that we are doing it wrong, we can not win.

I heartily disagree, I cannot see us giving up and sucking our thumbs. see in your 1st paragraph you say we have to take it to them, now you say we can not win.

Can you explain this?

Again ambiguous in what we have to do. are you suggesting we go back to the clinton years of running from somalis and flacid responses to terrorist responses?

How is this a solution?

kinda a strawman, who is calling you a traitor?


And once again, what is your actual solution. there is a lot of ambiguous general ideas, but no concrete solutions as usual.

If you all think you can do it better, how come we have not heard how all these years?
.................................................
Is Isreal doing any of what you say above? can you provide links?

Thanks.
.................................................
ah, ok. thanks.

I see absolutely no great detail in any explanation you gave regarding a "mini-cold war" involving the Saddam, the U.N., France, et al. taking kickbacks. There is no detail at all, no explanation whatsoever. Are you talking about this thread? I would like to see your dissertation on this issue however so please link it for me. Not knowing the stage you set for this kind of rationale I can't comment on it to any great degree, but I have some serious reservations about it's validity. Regardless, in your posts I do see several examples of you dismissing history, being Gung-Ho, asking other posters for solutions while posting none of your own ideas, and baiting others with one liners. With exception of the two posts responding to me none of your posts were more than three sentences in length. None of your posts offered up anything resembling a solution or strategy for dealing with the problem of Islamic extremists.

To be continued....
 
I have also offered solutions in the past, and I see progress in Iraq, I see this war as winding down, I have friends serving in both theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. I see victory. I agree with Obama that more troops are needed in afghanistan......
That's great, but that doesn't help me in the context of this thread, which is what I was commenting on. In this post I see you still yet focused on the military facet of the issue. Could you link these solutions? It would help me to understand what you are thinking when you don't write it down.

More troops were needed on both fronts, Bush did not do this. A better strategy, IMO of a massive occupation would have shortened this war.
Possibly, more troops in Iraq from the beginning would have shortened this war. I'll agree. So does almost every military leader in the west. However, you are once again putting your focus on a military operation, not the problem of Islamic extremism. It's clear where your focus is. The stance I take is that your entire logic is flawed because I don't see you being critical of the fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place. Too few troops, not enough...it's irrelevant to the core issue of Islamic extremism. The invasion alone was a major catalyst for these organizations embarking upon an entirely new and widespread campaign of terror.

There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.

Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people. Bush gave lip service to this. however he did not follow through. I am worried that Obama's assured pull back will only embolden the enemy at this point.
So your first solution, your only solution, instead of examining the roots of the problem and developing an overarching strategy on foreign policy that addresses this, is to simply keep throwing money, troops, and bombs at the problem. I'm assuming this would include preemptive war?

Which this latter is your position, that we can't go around bombing the ME or some such policy of non-engagment.
Did you even read what I posted? I never said we can't engage the enemy. In fact I said we have to. However we have to use discretion and caution when we do so. Contrast to the completely bungled invasion of Iraq and our lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. A shift in our overall strategy regarding who we invade and why would help at this point. Do you have any idea what the invasion of Iraq has done to our standing with the Muslim community, or the international community as a whole?

Anyway, let's talk about your strategy. What nations do you believe we should take military action against and why? On what scale should the operations be conducted? What is your follow up plan for after the shooting stops? What ideas do you have in terms of engaging the governments of these nations diplomatically? Any? How would you go about rallying the support of our allies in this endeavor? Would this be a unilateral series of operations?

You have obviously thought about this, and I'm certainly a student of the issue, so I would think this will be a great topic of discussion.
At this point that would be disasterous for the peoples of the ME, give carte blanche to the savage terrorists to create talibans, and other extreme forms of government, and a safe haven for those who would do us harm., This is no solution.
Complete inaction would be disastrous. Now, I ask you, just how much good is our current policy doing the peoples of the middle east? How have we countered the root issues of radical Islam? You do realize that if we don't we will simply be forced to keep going back, keep shooting, keep bombing...right? So, where is the rest of your solution? Because what you have offered isn't even close to a solution, it's simply doing what we are doing now, which isn't working. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
What do you know about the Taliban? What do you know about Al Qaeda? Do you know how long it takes to indoctrinate and educate a radical Muslim to the point that they are proficient terrorists? Not just suicide bombers? Again, you are trying to oversimplify the situation in order to structure your argument into some form of validation for your point of view. There are literally tens of thousands of radical Islamic militants. The majority are in fact poor, undereducated men and boys who are recruited from the ghettos of the Middle East. If you don't know this then you have some reading to do.

Now I am no mathematician, but I count more than 3 sentences.... :2wave:
Maybe now.
 
Last edited:
We have no right to interfer with other countries, perhaps when we realize that the world would be much safer

Yet if we don't interefere with other countries people look at us with those big puppy dog eyes and ask "Where was America!?!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather be damned because I did something, wouldnt you?
 
Reading through your post Lerxst, it is apparent that you choose to complain, but offer little in the way of solutions. Your verbosity does not equal validity. I asked you what your solution is, your response was you were unqualified. I on the otherhand have been offering my opinion on this matter, to which you attack with these little baiting snippets surrounded by "what I am not doing" nonsense. This is typical of the left wing intellectual, Something is wrong, but instead of offering a solution, lets complain, bait, and misconstrue reality for politics. Note in half of what you quoted me, you attributed an out of context position to them.

But lets look,

That's great, but that doesn't help me in the context of this thread, which is what I was commenting on. In this post I see you still yet focused on the military facet of the issue. Could you link these solutions? It would help me to understand what you are thinking when you don't write it down.

Once again, this should be a dialogue not you refusing to offer solutions, then chiding my solutions. So far I must assume you mean do nothing, since you are unable to articulate a different path.

As for my position on this war in Iraq and the link to the oil for food program you are free to search these forums, it is not something I hide.



Possibly, more troops in Iraq from the beginning would have shortened this war. I'll agree. So does almost every military leader in the west. However, you are once again putting your focus on a military operation, not the problem of Islamic extremism. It's clear where your focus is. The stance I take is that your entire logic is flawed because I don't see you being critical of the fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place. Too few troops, not enough...it's irrelevant to the core issue of Islamic extremism. The invasion alone was a major catalyst for these organizations embarking upon an entirely new and widespread campaign of terror.

How would you address Islamic extremism? All I see is you attacking my solutions without any smidgeon of substance.

Sure I get it, "war is not the answer", but we need to "Take the fight to the enemy" and other seemingly contradictory positions.

New campaign of terror? Did you forget how islamic extremists attacked us on 911? Are you suggesting that if we did not go to war in iraq to fix a big issue, that they would be like "we got you back, even steven"?

This is a puerile and rather ignorant position that you have taken.


So your first solution, your only solution, instead of examining the roots of the problem and developing an overarching strategy on foreign policy that addresses this, is to simply keep throwing money, troops, and bombs at the problem. I'm assuming this would include preemptive war?

Wait, are you now giving me my opinion then arguing it? Quote me where I stated it was the only problem and that all we need to do is throw troops and money at the problem?

And your assumption indicates you did not read my previous posts, search this thread for sovereignty then try again.


Did you even read what I posted? I never said we can't engage the enemy. In fact I said we have to. However we have to use discretion and caution when we do so. Contrast to the completely bungled invasion of Iraq and our lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. A shift in our overall strategy regarding who we invade and why would help at this point. Do you have any idea what the invasion of Iraq has done to our standing with the Muslim community, or the international community as a whole?


Please give me an example of "discretion and caution", as you keep throwing out buzzwords and talking points, but lack substance as to thier meaning.


Anyway, let's talk about your strategy. What nations do you believe we should take military action against and why? On what scale should the operations be conducted? What is your follow up plan for after the shooting stops? What ideas do you have in terms of engaging the governments of these nations diplomatically? Any? How would you go about rallying the support of our allies in this endeavor? Would this be a unilateral series of operations?

Wow, so not only did you apply an opinion to me that I did not have, but now you want to redirect the conversation into this pidgeon hole?




You need to firm up some of your opinions before you deflect onto a tangent.



You have obviously thought about this, and I'm certainly a student of the issue, so I would think this will be a great topic of discussion.


It would be. Though I think your method of expanding the discussion, dilutes this talk, lets stay focused, and even narrow it down in future posts to at least a single post response.


Complete inaction would be disastrous. Now, I ask you, just how much good is our current policy doing the peoples of the middle east? How have we countered the root issues of radical Islam? You do realize that if we don't we will simply be forced to keep going back, keep shooting, keep bombing...right? So, where is the rest of your solution? Because what you have offered isn't even close to a solution, it's simply doing what we are doing now, which isn't working. Wash, rinse, repeat.


I have offered exactly 100% more of a solution than you brother. I am happy to get into the diplomatic side of the conversation. Let me know which of these tangents you want to stay on.

What do you know about the Taliban? What do you know about Al Qaeda? Do you know how long it takes to indoctrinate and educate a radical Muslim to the point that they are proficient terrorists? Not just suicide bombers? Again, you are trying to oversimplify the situation in order to structure your argument into some form of validation for your point of view. There are literally tens of thousands of radical Islamic militants. The majority are in fact poor, undereducated men and boys who are recruited from the ghettos of the Middle East. If you don't know this then you have some reading to do.

Another tangent... Oh ok.... you are right, and I never denied that poor and destitute can be attracted to this islamic extremism. My point was that so could the rich and well to do..... which you seemed to gloss over.


Maybe now.



Baiting, fun..... :lol:



Nah man, I simply respond to posts in kind. You get what you give.
 
I have a real problem with the "root cause(s)" fetish that dominates any discussion of Islamic terrorism.

It just ain't possible to tie this one down. The terrorists themsevles cite all sorts of reasons, typically evolving as the basis for one reason disappears so something new becomes contemporary fashion.

Typically, politicians and scholars boil the root cause of Islamic extremism down to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But this doesn't explain the Islamist murder of, for example, 150,000 in Algeria over the last decade or two, the murder of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq.

So, the real root problem in Islamic extremism is...Islam. Traditional and even mainstream islamic teaching promotes violence. Women are stoned to death and gays hang from the gallows...with the approving and sometimes enthusiastically cheering support of Muslims throughout the Middle East and Africa. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near-deafening silence of the Muslim majority against this barbarism is evidence enough that something is fundamentally wrong.

Terrorism is just a manifestation of this disease.
 
Reading through your post Lerxst, it is apparent that you choose to complain, but offer little in the way of solutions. Your verbosity does not equal validity. I asked you what your solution is, your response was you were unqualified. I on the otherhand have been offering my opinion on this matter, to which you attack with these little baiting snippets surrounded by "what I am not doing" nonsense. This is typical of the left wing intellectual, Something is wrong, but instead of offering a solution, lets complain, bait, and misconstrue reality for politics. Note in half of what you quoted me, you attributed an out of context position to them.
I offered a substantial amount of information regarding what we have done wrong and how we can start to correct it, specifically regarding foreign policy. You are hung up on the military solution, I'm talking about overall, long term strategy.

Now you are are all mad that I posted your comments in this thread and caught you flat footed. Your comments were a major series of one liners with little to no actual value to the debate. You said you weren't of a Gung-Ho mindset, I referenced your comments that show that you in fact are. You tried to say you gave a detailed explanation about this mini-cold war being waged by the French, Germans, and U.N. or something. This was your counter to my statement. I simply proved to you that you did no such thing. Don't get angry, just read your own posts before you try to pull one over on me. And I attributed none of your statements out of context. If you have a problem with how your one liners are interpreted I would suggest putting a little more time and effort into them. Now if you want to go back and give specific examples of where I used them out of context we can examine that. I'll show you where you are wrong in your own words.

But lets look,
Why not.

Once again, this should be a dialogue not you refusing to offer solutions, then chiding my solutions. So far I must assume you mean do nothing, since you are unable to articulate a different path.
You offered no solutions. You simply said we needed to increase troop strengths and invade nations that harbor terrorists. You show me where you offered anything other than this. I have at least provided basic, broad ideas of how we could engage high risk/at risk nations and assist in the effort to help counter the spread of radical Islam. In summary I talked about critically examining how we utilize foreign aid and trade agreements as well as taking a vocal position on the international stage even when it's critical of our allies. A reinvention of U.S. foreign policy that puts more weight into assisting in moderate, democratic reform as opposed to national/corporate interests and the western flow of resources would be a start. All of these things can have tremendous impact on the ground in nations we extend our influence into. If our foreign policy helps improve their daily living conditions and returns to them a sense of self-determination it will dramatically impact their willingness to blow themselves up. All you have to do is look at how we have impacted them with our past strategies to tell that we have to do something different. What I am suggesting is a pretty good start, at least according to the authors I have read.

As for my position on this war in Iraq and the link to the oil for food program you are free to search these forums, it is not something I hide.
No thank you. You tried to use it to counter me, holding it out as some kind of example of your substantial contribution to this discussion. I'll not give you the benefit of the doubt on this given your history here. The burden is on you to present, if you choose not to I'll simply dismiss you as being too lazy to do so or simply not caring to back up your position.

How would you address Islamic extremism? All I see is you attacking my solutions without any smidgeon of substance.
You gave no solution to attack. You have simply backed expanding the war. Nothing more. That is not a solution, there is no end game here. You don't seem to understand the problem with this kind of logic. I do. I have absolutely provided an explanation as to why your strategy won't work, prima facia evidence being that it hasn't worked in the last six years or so. This isn't all that hard. A "solution" implies there is an end game of some kind. Increasing troop strengths and invading other nations is a one dimensional methodology involving combat operations. Since you can't seem to provide anything other than this I am forced to wonder what your definition of "solution" really is.

Sure I get it, "war is not the answer", but we need to "Take the fight to the enemy" and other seemingly contradictory positions.
Invading Iraq wasn't the answer, fighting the Taliban obviously was the answer. Again, you try to make this so simple, but it's not. And that is where you stumble. We did some things right, and some things wrong. Afghanistan, in principle was the right thing to do. Our actual execution on the other hand has been sorely lacking. And like our involvement during the Soviet occupation of that nation, we are precariously close to screwing up the end game on this one as well. Our strategy for Afghanistan in both cases showed that we simply did not learn anything about our past failures. Dropping the ball there has set us back and resulted in the civilian population drifting back towards the fundamentalists for solutions. We created a vacuum and we didn't fill it properly. This is an example of failed foreign policy.

Moving on, working hand in hand with foreign nations to combat the spread of active terror groups is one way of "taking the fight to the enemy." Joint military operations or simply helping develop a system of more moderate educational institutions are both examples, the key being the development of relationships that foster that kind of activity. Remember, this isn't always about military force. These nations are basically fighting an insurgency. And if you know anything about counter insurgency you know it's all about giving the population an alternative to the bad guys. Invasion and occupation is rarely a good answer as it creates more problems than it solves in a situation like this (extremist theology based militarism). Covert ops as well as surgical overt operations come to mind. Scalpel as opposed to a hatchet. Invading countries with no substantial link to supporting international terrorism not so much.

New campaign of terror? Did you forget how islamic extremists attacked us on 911? Are you suggesting that if we did not go to war in iraq to fix a big issue, that they would be like "we got you back, even steven"?
No I didn't. Do you not understand that the events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq have almost nothing to do with one another, despite a desire from the right to make it seem so? The new campaign of terror is taking place in the middle east and is a direct result of our occupation of Iraq. Do you understand this? We added fuel to this fire and we opened up a brand new front that led to the rise of a new generation of Islamic militants in Iraq. Get it?

This is a puerile and rather ignorant position that you have taken.
No, the puerile and ignorant position would be associating me with arguments I haven't made or trying to argue against a position that I have never taken. It's clear you are having trouble comprehending the actual argument I'm making because it gets all blurry to you. I'm addressing the military, geopolitical, historical aspects of this issue and you are not for some reason. You seem to be stuck in the military side of it and are content to make accusations of complaining whenever I bring up the U.S. part of the problem. And that's okay, but it gets us nowhere.

TBC...
 
Wait, are you now giving me my opinion then arguing it? Quote me where I stated it was the only problem and that all we need to do is throw troops and money at the problem?
How can I? You've offered nothing but this kind of response to the problem. Show me where you have offered anything else. When you say we need to put more troops into Iraq, which is what you said, by default that involves more money, more munitions. Does it not?

And your assumption indicates you did not read my previous posts, search this thread for sovereignty then try again.
Reverend Hellhound, not only did I read your posts, I pulled them ALL together and put them in one big post. I know exactly what you said. Your post containing the word sovereignty involved stripping it from nations that harbor terrorists and invading them as a solution. That is your opinion, I didn't give it to you, you stated it. I simply responded.


Please give me an example of "discretion and caution", as you keep throwing out buzzwords and talking points, but lack substance as to thier meaning.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what those words amount to in a military context. Seeing as we are both veterans I would assume you would get the context I was going for. Not sure what you did in the military, but from now on I'll assume you weren't combat arms.

So let me break this down for you in terms that I think you'll get. When I say "discretion and caution" I am referring to overt and covert operation that do not involve the invasion and occupation of nations, operations that do not involve the destruction of large amounts civilian utilized infrastructure (power grids, communications centers, water treatment plants), and operations that are launched in response to reasonably good HUMINT. SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT. Operations that by design contain the damage pattern to the target area and don't end up flattening whole sections of a neighborhood. Those kinds of operations.

Wow, so not only did you apply an opinion to me that I did not have, but now you want to redirect the conversation into this pidgeon hole?
What are you talking about? You said...
There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.

Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people.
THAT is your position, YOU stated it. You called it a "solution." What you described is nothing more than saying "if they harbor terrorists we invade whenever and wherever we feel it necessary." That's it. You described nothing more. Unilateral cowboy foreign policy that relies on a big stick. I asked you to clarify your position by explaining the rest of your "solution" because you don't have the best track record of actually spelling things out here. I see you didn't even try. How come that is?

You need to firm up some of your opinions before you deflect onto a tangent.
My opinions are firmed up just fine. The problem here for you is that you have yet to actually get around one of them. Once again, all you have done is accused me of complaining and not coming up with a "solution." I gave several examples of things we could do differently. For some reason they just aren't jumping off the page at you. That is not my problem. I don't have to ask you to go and search other threads to get to what I'm saying...I've posted it all out here in front of you. What exactly are you having a problem with? Spell it out and if I've addressed it in this thread, I'll walk you back through it. If you didn't understand what I posted, I'll break it down for you.

It would be. Though I think your method of expanding the discussion, dilutes this talk, lets stay focused, and even narrow it down in future posts to at least a single post response.
Well I suppose you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion if you're not prepared to at explain it. You used your "solution" to counter my argument. Excuse me for asking you to not be so simplistic since what you have proposed has already been tried and failed. Is it wrong for me to ask you what your plan consists of and how it's going to be somehow different?
I have offered exactly 100% more of a solution than you brother. I am happy to get into the diplomatic side of the conversation. Let me know which of these tangents you want to stay on.
Yeah, okay. :roll: So when I start asking you to provide at least as much detail as I have all of sudden I'm going off on a tangent. This discussion has evolved in a very relevant and on topic fashion. Just because I'm forcing you to step outside your one dimensional mind set on this issue does not mean I'm on a tangent or diluting the debate. It just means you don't want to go there, or you can't. Either one.

You will hear about this elsewhere.

Another tangent... Oh ok.... you are right, and I never denied that poor and destitute can be attracted to this islamic extremism. My point was that so could the rich and well to do..... which you seemed to gloss over.
How did I gloss over it exactly? You, in your typical fashion, were simplifying and limiting your remarks in order to counter me in some way. I say poor, you say rich. You took one example over the history of this problem, narrowed it to less than two dozen people and said...
RHH said said:
Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
How is that in anyway a "stark contrast" to my assertion that the poor and undereducated are prime targets for indoctrination to the radical Islamic movement? What was the point of your comment? Just so you would have something to say back to me? Were you simply trying to be argumentative? I am fully aware that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated. So? What does that have to do with the fact that thousands of Muslims living in middle eastern ghettos are being recruited by militant clerics? That some well educated Muslims are also being recruited? Okay, I knew that already. My commentary on the poor of the middle east being at risk is relative to the over all problem and how past and current U.S. foreign policy plays a role. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to track for you.

We are talking about "the problem" of radical Islam and "solutions" to it, are we not? In an intelligent discussion of this problem is it not very relevant to talk about the underlying causes? Or are you not comfortable with that discussion? Tangent? I think not. Deep water for you? It sure looks that way. Would you prefer we just talk about the January 1 missile strike instead?


Baiting, fun..... :lol:



Nah man, I simply respond to posts in kind. You get what you give.
Well do me the courtesy of at least trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with me then. Just because you say I haven't offered up "solutions" doesn't mean I haven't provided what I believe to be the best answer to your challenges.

I have taken a great deal of time to put serious effort into reading and responding to your posts, point by point. I've glossed over nothing and addressed nearly every line of text you have posted in response to our argument. You haven't even tried to delve into a third of what I've discussed. It's fairly insulting to see you conduct yourself in this manner after I've taken your posts seriously enough to dedicate the kind of time I have in responding.

If this is the effort you can muster, don't even bother responding.
 
I have a real problem with the "root cause(s)" fetish that dominates any discussion of Islamic terrorism.
It's not a fetish. It's very real and it can be countered. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.

It just ain't possible to tie this one down. The terrorists themsevles cite all sorts of reasons, typically evolving as the basis for one reason disappears so something new becomes contemporary fashion.
Really? Okay, please cite what the terrorists say, maybe give examples of reasons that have disappeared and ones that have taken their place.

Typically, politicians and scholars boil the root cause of Islamic extremism down to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But this doesn't explain the Islamist murder of, for example, 150,000 in Algeria over the last decade or two, the murder of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq.
No, not "typically." It's certainly a factor, but not the factor. Do you know how many Muslims there are on this planet? Do you know how many perpetrate the crimes you are speaking of?

So, the real root problem in Islamic extremism is...Islam. Traditional and even mainstream islamic teaching promotes violence. Women are stoned to death and gays hang from the gallows...with the approving and sometimes enthusiastically cheering support of Muslims throughout the Middle East and Africa. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near-deafening silence of the Muslim majority against this barbarism is evidence enough that something is fundamentally wrong.
Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about. What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.

Terrorism is just a manifestation of this disease.
Not even clever.
 
When Obama is president these news dispatches will carry more importance and weight by the MSM....trust me!



Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
 
How can I? You've offered nothing but this kind of response to the problem. Show me where you have offered anything else. When you say we need to put more troops into Iraq, which is what you said, by default that involves more money, more munitions. Does it not?



Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.




Reverend Hellhound, not only did I read your posts, I pulled them ALL together and put them in one big post. I know exactly what you said. Your post containing the word sovereignty involved stripping it from nations that harbor terrorists and invading them as a solution. That is your opinion, I didn't give it to you, you stated it. I simply responded.

Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.


When did I say "strip"?



I'm sorry that you can't understand what those words amount to in a military context. Seeing as we are both veterans I would assume you would get the context I was going for. Not sure what you did in the military, but from now on I'll assume you weren't combat arms.



Bait me all you want. Your subversive rudeness beckons to your building up of anger that you are known for.

You know damn well what I did in the Air Force, or are you going to pretend now you don't in order to play your little troll game. We can compare DD214's any time you like.

So let me break this down for you in terms that I think you'll get. When I say "discretion and caution" I am referring to overt and covert operation that do not involve the invasion and occupation of nations, operations that do not involve the destruction of large amounts civilian utilized infrastructure (power grids, communications centers, water treatment plants), and operations that are launched in response to reasonably good HUMINT. SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT. Operations that by design contain the damage pattern to the target area and don't end up flattening whole sections of a neighborhood. Those kinds of operations.


:lol: like how? Give me an example. You can throw all the "intelligence" acronyms around to look cool all you want. All you are doing is avoiding an actual answer....

Are you suggesting ignorantly I might add that we can do MOUT operations in terrorist strongholds without any of the things you whine about above? Or do you think haji only hides in the hills. :doh:


You know what you propose would expose operators to far greater danger, right? Good to see saftey of these members amount little to you.



What are you talking about? You said...

THAT is your position, YOU stated it. You called it a "solution." What you described is nothing more than saying "if they harbor terrorists we invade whenever and wherever we feel it necessary." That's it. You described nothing more. Unilateral cowboy foreign policy that relies on a big stick. I asked you to clarify your position by explaining the rest of your "solution" because you don't have the best track record of actually spelling things out here. I see you didn't even try. How come that is?


more of a solution than you offered, but if you look real close and take you partisan blinders off for a second you can see that we are proposing similar things here....

Go ahead think about it.... Your little surgical small hammer solution, would require exactly what I propose. Soveregnty means jack when you send in troops to get terrorists like you stated.

Or are you suggesting that we ask the likes of the Taliban permission before going into afghanistan oh and wait for france to give us the go ahead.

I think this is where we differ.



My opinions are firmed up just fine. The problem here for you is that you have yet to actually get around one of them. Once again, all you have done is accused me of complaining and not coming up with a "solution." I gave several examples of things we could do differently. For some reason they just aren't jumping off the page at you. That is not my problem. I don't have to ask you to go and search other threads to get to what I'm saying...I've posted it all out here in front of you. What exactly are you having a problem with? Spell it out and if I've addressed it in this thread, I'll walk you back through it. If you didn't understand what I posted, I'll break it down for you.


:lol: why you waste your time posting these tantrums is beyond me......



Well I suppose you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion if you're not prepared to at explain it. You used your "solution" to counter my argument. Excuse me for asking you to not be so simplistic since what you have proposed has already been tried and failed. Is it wrong for me to ask you what your plan consists of and how it's going to be somehow different?


pages and pages of whining...jeesh, or is that "Command pressence" you are going for?


Yeah, okay. :roll: So when I start asking you to provide at least as much detail as I have all of sudden I'm going off on a tangent. This discussion has evolved in a very relevant and on topic fashion. Just because I'm forcing you to step outside your one dimensional mind set on this issue does not mean I'm on a tangent or diluting the debate. It just means you don't want to go there, or you can't. Either one.


I think I used up my smiley quotent, You are so laughable. Just because I have no interest in a broad discussion on every little tangent you can think of is not my issue its yours. Pick something to talk about and lets shorten this up....




You will hear about this elsewhere.


How did I gloss over it exactly? You, in your typical fashion, were simplifying and limiting your remarks in order to counter me in some way. I say poor, you say rich. You took one example over the history of this problem, narrowed it to less than two dozen people and said...


Useless banter.


How is that in anyway a "stark contrast" to my assertion that the poor and undereducated are prime targets for indoctrination to the radical Islamic movement? What was the point of your comment? Just so you would have something to say back to me? Were you simply trying to be argumentative? I am fully aware that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated. So? What does that have to do with the fact that thousands of Muslims living in middle eastern ghettos are being recruited by militant clerics? That some well educated Muslims are also being recruited? Okay, I knew that already. My commentary on the poor of the middle east being at risk is relative to the over all problem and how past and current U.S. foreign policy plays a role. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to track for you.

Talk about arguing for arguings sake. I never disagreed with you regarding this, I simply pointed out that indeed they come from all walks of islamic life....


We are talking about "the problem" of radical Islam and "solutions" to it, are we not? In an intelligent discussion of this problem is it not very relevant to talk about the underlying causes? Or are you not comfortable with that discussion? Tangent? I think not. Deep water for you? It sure looks that way. Would you prefer we just talk about the January 1 missile strike instead?


ad hom after ad hom....


What started radical Islam? what caused it? Why do they kill each other?

Please by all means educate me.



Well do me the courtesy of at least trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with me then. Just because you say I haven't offered up "solutions" doesn't mean I haven't provided what I believe to be the best answer to your challenges.


More useless crying and ad homs.


I have taken a great deal of time to put serious effort into reading and responding to your posts, point by point. I've glossed over nothing and addressed nearly every line of text you have posted in response to our argument. You haven't even tried to delve into a third of what I've discussed. It's fairly insulting to see you conduct yourself in this manner after I've taken your posts seriously enough to dedicate the kind of time I have in responding.


Again with the useless complaining.



If this is the effort you can muster, don't even bother responding.


Man you complain alot... :lol:



But see, if you leave all the personal crap out, and stop complaining, your posts become more managable... Why don't you give it a try.... Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I offered a substantial amount of information regarding what we have done wrong and how we can start to correct it, specifically regarding foreign policy. You are hung up on the military solution, I'm talking about overall, long term strategy.

Where?

Now you are are all mad that I posted your comments in this thread and caught you flat footed. Your comments were a major series of one liners with little to no actual value to the debate. You said you weren't of a Gung-Ho mindset, I referenced your comments that show that you in fact are. You tried to say you gave a detailed explanation about this mini-cold war being waged by the French, Germans, and U.N. or something. This was your counter to my statement. I simply proved to you that you did no such thing. Don't get angry, just read your own posts before you try to pull one over on me. And I attributed none of your statements out of context. If you have a problem with how your one liners are interpreted I would suggest putting a little more time and effort into them. Now if you want to go back and give specific examples of where I used them out of context we can examine that. I'll show you where you are wrong in your own words.


Useless ad hom banter and misrepresentation of my posts.




You offered no solutions. You simply said we needed to increase troop strengths and invade nations that harbor terrorists. You show me where you offered anything other than this. I have at least provided basic, broad ideas of how we could engage high risk/at risk nations and assist in the effort to help counter the spread of radical Islam. In summary I talked about critically examining how we utilize foreign aid and trade agreements as well as taking a vocal position on the international stage even when it's critical of our allies. A reinvention of U.S. foreign policy that puts more weight into assisting in moderate, democratic reform as opposed to national/corporate interests and the western flow of resources would be a start. All of these things can have tremendous impact on the ground in nations we extend our influence into. If our foreign policy helps improve their daily living conditions and returns to them a sense of self-determination it will dramatically impact their willingness to blow themselves up. All you have to do is look at how we have impacted them with our past strategies to tell that we have to do something different. What I am suggesting is a pretty good start, at least according to the authors I have read.

Now there you go Lerxst.....


You said this before? Can you show me? It must of gotten lost in all your ad hom, complaining, and banter.... If you show me I will be happy to take a look. :lol:


And you know what. I agree with this.... I also though as you say, think we need to take the fight to the terrorists.

What yo propose is some goofy "either or" proposition, or combined, depending on what post it is.

Perhaps you can summarize...


I think we should do exactly what you say, I also think we need to go into some of these "Soverign nations" to root out the hard core terrorists, and not ask france for a permision slip....



No thank you. You tried to use it to counter me, holding it out as some kind of example of your substantial contribution to this discussion. I'll not give you the benefit of the doubt on this given your history here. The burden is on you to present, if you choose not to I'll simply dismiss you as being too lazy to do so or simply not caring to back up your position.


Useless banter. Unlike you I am not intereted in "everything including the kitchen sink" debate style...


But it is simple and if you are as well read as you claim, you would understand the underpinnings of the oil for food program, who benefited, and who was blamed for starving Iraqis.....

But if willful ignorace is your position, uhm ok,



You gave no solution to attack. You have simply backed expanding the war. Nothing more. That is not a solution, there is no end game here. You don't seem to understand the problem with this kind of logic. I do. I have absolutely provided an explanation as to why your strategy won't work, prima facia evidence being that it hasn't worked in the last six years or so. This isn't all that hard. A "solution" implies there is an end game of some kind. Increasing troop strengths and invading other nations is a one dimensional methodology involving combat operations. Since you can't seem to provide anything other than this I am forced to wonder what your definition of "solution" really is.


More complaining and clear misrepresentation of my point.


What is your endgame? Historical evidence that your endgame has worked before?



Invading Iraq wasn't the answer, fighting the Taliban obviously was the answer. Again, you try to make this so simple, but it's not. And that is where you stumble. We did some things right, and some things wrong. Afghanistan, in principle was the right thing to do. Our actual execution on the other hand has been sorely lacking. And like our involvement during the Soviet occupation of that nation, we are precariously close to screwing up the end game on this one as well. Our strategy for Afghanistan in both cases showed that we simply did not learn anything about our past failures. Dropping the ball there has set us back and resulted in the civilian population drifting back towards the fundamentalists for solutions. We created a vacuum and we didn't fill it properly. This is an example of failed foreign policy.


So are you suggesting more troops? :lol:

Moving on, working hand in hand with foreign nations to combat the spread of active terror groups is one way of "taking the fight to the enemy." Joint military operations or simply helping develop a system of more moderate educational institutions are both examples, the key being the development of relationships that foster that kind of activity. Remember, this isn't always about military force. These nations are basically fighting an insurgency. And if you know anything about counter insurgency you know it's all about giving the population an alternative to the bad guys. Invasion and occupation is rarely a good answer as it creates more problems than it solves in a situation like this (extremist theology based militarism). Covert ops as well as surgical overt operations come to mind. Scalpel as opposed to a hatchet. Invading countries with no substantial link to supporting international terrorism not so much.


I find nothing wrong with this. I believe I have stated similar in the past... I guess you choose to see what you think I said instead of what I did say.

How would you go about giving say the population in Iraq an "alternate to the bad guys"? How does that differ than what we are doing, and how long should this take?


No I didn't. Do you not understand that the events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq have almost nothing to do with one another, despite a desire from the right to make it seem so? The new campaign of terror is taking place in the middle east and is a direct result of our occupation of Iraq. Do you understand this? We added fuel to this fire and we opened up a brand new front that led to the rise of a new generation of Islamic militants in Iraq. Get it?


Perfect.

Make up position I do not have, blame righty, and demonstrate an ignorance that this started long before iraq or even 911....


No, the puerile and ignorant position would be associating me with arguments I haven't made or trying to argue against a position that I have never taken. It's clear you are having trouble comprehending the actual argument I'm making because it gets all blurry to you. I'm addressing the military, geopolitical, historical aspects of this issue and you are not for some reason. You seem to be stuck in the military side of it and are content to make accusations of complaining whenever I bring up the U.S. part of the problem. And that's okay, but it gets us nowhere.


:lol: perhaps you should leave the drama out and stick to the facts and your position. It would benefit both of us.....
 
What does "winning the war" even mean, at this point?
Kill all the Al Qaeda leaders?
Who cares?
There are a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand ready to take the place of each one killed; this is largely the result of US conduct in the region.

I think it's a good idea, at this point, that we stop doing things, stop saying things, and simply go sit on our hands in a quiet room. Preferably, here in America.
Until something changes, everything we do from here on out only makes it worse.

This pretty much sums up the mentality of those who wallow in denial when it comes to the events of 9-11 and how to prevent future attacks on us.

What I ask of people who wallow in such denial is to explain to me what the US was doing that led to events of 9-11; were any troops in Iraq or Afghanistan?

The inane notion that if we just retreat from the Middle East and mind our own business, these hate mongers will leave us alone requires the willing suspension of reason and logic; it also requires one to ignore treaties and our allies and suggests that they do the fighting while we just sit back in peaceful bliss and ignorance.

This level of denial also requires the suspension of disbelief that the reasons there is so much hate in the region is perhaps caused by the fact that they are taught to hate and breed ignorance. These terrorists promote disinformation and lies in order to maintain enough ignorant followers to carry out their despicable acts. Do you honestly think it has ANYTHING to do with US policy? A policy I might add that has helped and fed millions of Muslims in Palestine, Indonesia, Bosnia and many other ethnic populations.

The REALITY is that terrorism is bred from ignorance of the truth, facts and honesty. If you think we are the bad guys in this scenario or that our actions in the Middle East right now are helping the terrorists, you truly are wallowing in self induced ignorance and perhaps willful historic ignorance. To suggest that it is OUR actions and not the lies, ignorance and disinformation from the terrorist and fundamentalist is truly stunning in the level of denial required to have such views.
 
Back
Top Bottom