• 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!

Deos understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

Does understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • No

    Votes: 16 94.1%

  • Total voters
    17

gree0232

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
428
Location
All over
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A bit long, but I think it is time to put this particular bit of fallacy to rest.

It has come to my attention that there is a substantial lack of knowledge in this forum about War in general, and insurgencies specifically.

Lets first start with a known axiom from every war strategist known for thousands of years: KNOW YOUR ENEMY. The formal process we use to analyze our enemy is called intelligence, and there are literally thousands of analysts and assets out there collecting data on our enemies so that we can determine what they are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what their intentions are. The entire goal of understanding your enemy and his intentions is to get in front of what he is doing and defeat him in detail. If you are not doing this, then you are just waiting for your enemy to strike. Done properly, good intelligence allows us to get in front of our enemies and done poorly, even if done with great enthusiasm, it wastes resources, time, and energy in activities that have no material effect on your enemy.

A case in point for Israel would be trying to close the Gaza tunnels with a temporary aerial campaign instead of an occupying ground force. There certainly must have been consideration that Hamas could be cowed and scared to the point where they would be deterred from digging new tunnels. That effort failed. We underestimated Hamas and their commitment to their goal and that lead us to apply the wrong tool to complete the job.

Additionally, denouncing those who understand their enemies and can find ways to attack them effectively as terrorists is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous. If you are so convinced that you are on the right track that your only response to a likely enemy counter is, “You are a terrorist,” you are in danger of myopic arrogance. Ignoring the likely enemy reaction to your move is a recipe for disaster, or both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu are morons. Take your pick.

That being said there are basically two methods of defeating an insurgency: political inclusion and slow sustained pressure using home grown security forces. There is another option, but it is not available to Western forces. We could follow the Crusade model and deal with the Palestinian problem by raping, pillaging, and murdering our way to suddenly empty land mass. Is there anyone that thinks this is serious method of solving the Palestinian problem?

An opportunity was missed with Hamas when they won the election. It was a different time period, and our understanding of defeating insurgencies has evolved orders of magnitude since that election. If Hamas is focused on governing and sees resolution to the liberation of Palestine through a political process, that is a good thing. The alternative is to turn them loose into the shadows where, with wide public support, they will again plot their terror attacks. For those who think that this is not an option, please look North and see what political inclusion has done to moderate Hezbollah and take note that several key NATO members have established political ties with the group. This also worked in Iraq where previous ‘terrorists’ were brought into the fold both as Sons of Iraq and the Madhi Militia earned seats the Iraqi Parliament. Both steps greatly reduced the amount of violence employed by both groups.

The second step, usually done in concert with the first, is growing indigenous security forces that are capable of policing the insurgent areas effectively. A homegrown force is made up of the sons and daughters of the people. Suddenly, the insurgents are not attacking foreign Barbarians, they are attacking the locals they used to meet at the pub or watch grow up in soccer matches. That is how the people are involved in the fight. Additionally, Western nation has ever beaten an insurgent force by applying only its own combat power. Even the Russians in Chechnya created their own Chechen forces, albeit extraordinarily brutal proxy forces. In the occupied territory of Palestine, forty years of Israeli occupation have failed to stamp out Palestinian resistance. There remains a serious threat of residual insurgency. The events around the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount were an attempt to recreate the Intifada, the previous two were born at that exact same location. Fortunately, there remains hope that the current process will produce results. If the promise of political results fade, the Intifada will rise again.

If 2006 proves anything, it is that insurgent groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have not been sitting idle in the interim. If the situation against deteriorates into open insurrection, Hamas and indeed Fatah will unleash a new bag of tricks against Israel. Israel will no doubt eventually get in front of it, but we will be right back where we started. The only difference will be the number of people who were killed during the fighting. Utterly pointless.

Finally, there is the reality of war in execution: violence. Both sides in a war use violence and when the situation turns violent, people die. You can either acknowledge it and scream in rage and demand revenge, or you can acknowledge it and do something about it. If you not studying your enemy and looking for vulnerabilities to exploit when you apply violence, than all you are doing is killing your own soldiers. If you blindly attack him, you may get lucky and hit a vulnerability, most likely you will not, but getting to that point through Darwinism rather than analysis is murder. More often, you simply do a lot of killing, and neither you nor your enemy is defeated. Congrats.

Now a take a closer look at Hamas with a eye toward identifying vulnerabilities rather than simply saying, “Heh they suck,” because even if they do suck, they are still conducting operations. Taunting them WILL NOT defeat them. Please bear in mind, Western Nations have branded Hamas a terrorist group. There is no country in the Middle East, save Israel and possibly Egypt (though in doing so it is faced with the rising tide of the Muslim Brotherhood), that has branded Hamas a terrorist group. That is a problem for Israel. Nominally moderate states provide the bulk of Hamas’s budget. That is a problem for Israel. If you are branding Hamas terrorists, and those that control the likely smuggling routes and finances of said terrorists groups politely disagree with you, then you have a problem. How are you going to get at Hamas’s logistics without being able to effect the logistics lines?

So what is it about Hamas that seems to resonate so much in with the Arab public? Is there a way to counter that narrative? I will submit that going before the UN and denouncing 350 million Arabs for not actively denouncing Iran is probably not the best way to go about doing it.

We would also be wise to pay attention to Hamas’s Palestinian objectives. They won an election, and there is something they are doing that is garnering credit with the Palestinian people. The question then is, do we want a moderate, secular Palestinian government or do we want a conservative, Islamic Palestinian government? There is an internal Palestinian narrative between the two groups: Hamas and Fatah. By reading something like the Hamas Charter with an ear toward that narrative we figure out what Hamas’s selling point are to the Palestinian people. One of the biggest is the narrative that the West cannot negotiate in good faith where Palestinians are concerned. To Palestinians watching Abbas bang his head up against the proverbial brick wall, that seems entirely true.

So, if our goal is to marginalize Hamas, we should probably not be confirming their narrative version of events on a daily basis. Right now, the West’s actions in the ME are marginalizing Abbas and proving Hamas’s assessment of the situation correct. That is a calculus we must change. Calling those who point this out, ‘terrorists or terrorists sympathizers’, will not alter that calculus.

There are two things you can do with an assessment of your enemy. You can look at it for vulnerabilities to exploit and find areas where your efforts are not producing results and redirect them to something more successful or, you can fully embrace delusion and think that more military power will defeat Hamas and continue to pretend that screaming into the wind will effect Hamas. In the end, Hamas is there and must be dealt with.

For the record, it is the Fatah wing of the Palestinians that I support ( at least conceptually and only because the alternative is Hamas.) Like it or not, Fatah and Hamas are engaged in a political struggle that is even more intense than the one between Hamas and Israel. If we are unaware of the processes that have turned Gaza into a Hamas camp and the West Bank into a nominally Fatah Camp, then we are missing a huge piece of the equation. Right now, Israeli military power has essentially put the lid on a Palestinian Civil War. If we are unaware of the continuing struggle in the political and economic domains of these two groups, then eventually, when the lid comes off and we have not propped up the side we want to be victorious then that will have serious repercussions for Israel down the road.

By avoiding the study of your enemy and denouncing those who do study them as terrorist sympathizers and worse, you do your country no favor. One way or another, your enemies will have to be dealt with and we can either do it in the time, place, and under the conditions of our choosing, or wait for the enemy to establish the time, place, and conditions of engagement. Your choice.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Based on recent issues regarding ME Forum moderation, I consider this a bait thread. I am closing it pending further review.
 
Moderator's Warning:
After review, the thread has been re-opened, moved to Polls and a poll has been added.
 
A bit long, but I think it is time to put this particular bit of fallacy to rest.

It has come to my attention that there is a substantial lack of knowledge in this forum about War in general, and insurgencies specifically.

Speak for yourself. Probably not a good idea starting a thread by insulting people.

Second, you'll be much more effective to narrow your introductory post down to a few succinct bullet points germane to the topic. No one wants to read your book.

Third, this thread will be seen by most as a self-congratulatory post to show everyone how much you know about the topic. Congrats, you are smart.

Additionally, denouncing those who understand their enemies and can find ways to attack them effectively as terrorists is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous

Who is your audience? Israel? Americans?

That being said there are basically two methods of defeating an insurgency: political inclusion and slow sustained pressure using home grown security forces. There is another option, but it is not available to Western forces. We could follow the Crusade model and deal with the Palestinian problem by raping, pillaging, and murdering our way to suddenly empty land mass.

I choose option 1, if it must be done. Next question.
 
Speak for yourself. Probably not a good idea starting a thread by insulting people.

He's not wrong though. People here think that COIN operations are judged as successes based on their body count rather then through reduction in insurgent activity, government corruption, education and economic development. Some people here think that killing terrorists in ways that increase the number of new terrorists is productive. Some people have no understanding of how corruption in Vietnam doomed many of the operations there and don't understand why boosting troops after an openly fraudulent election is bad, bad, bad idea. Granted, it's a bad idea, but he's not wrong that many people here are frankly ignorant and stupid.
 
Knowing your enemy and correctly responding to what you know are two different things.

Everyone has a fundamental right to know as much about their enemy as possible. As much as I hate to say this even terrorists have that right.

Of course the flip side to that is that everyone also has the fundamental right to try and stop someone from knowing too much about them.

So in essence "knowing your enemy" does not in itself make you a terrorist. It is your actions that makes you a terrorist.

A case could be made for any country or group of people to be considered a terrorist. As far as I'm concerned the term "terrorist" is purely subjective.
 
Voted "No".
I think that the poll question for itself is silly, as nobody in this forum equals "understanding your enemy" to "being a terrorist", and no one has ever done so.
 
He's not wrong though. People here think that COIN operations are judged as successes based on their body count rather then through reduction in insurgent activity, government corruption, education and economic development. Some people here think that killing terrorists in ways that increase the number of new terrorists is productive. Some people have no understanding of how corruption in Vietnam doomed many of the operations there and don't understand why boosting troops after an openly fraudulent election is bad, bad, bad idea. Granted, it's a bad idea, but he's not wrong that many people here are frankly ignorant and stupid.

There are those of us who are well nuanced in COIN Ops both in practice and theory.

There are those who don't have this life experience....that's OK.

Smugly insulting the entire forum b/c they allegedly don't know as much as you about a particular topic is in bad taste.

Had he presented this information in response to a thread that had faulty premises on COIN Ops, then I would understand.

If what you say is true, this is all the more reason he should have begun the thread with a series of easy-to-understand bullets educating those that aren't informed.

I think the poll question isn't necessarily germane to the topic he discusses.
 
Last edited:
Voted "No".
I think that the poll question for itself is silly, as nobody in this forum equals "understanding your enemy" to "being a terrorist", and no one has ever done so.

A:
Interestingly enough, YOU are one of the reasons this was started, and it was not started as a poll. This was in a direct rebuttal to your, and a few other posters, who continually respond to any discussion of terrorists groups by claiming that those who seek to understand them, even with the intent of taking them apart, are really terrorists.

Hamas's actions are listed in some detail in the original post, and you and others, routinely call those making the posts Hamas supporters, terrorist sympathizers, and out right terrorists.

So man up, make your case, and demonstrate how that post equates to supporting terrorists. You have made that claim for months on the forum, now prove it.
 
There are those of us who are well nuanced in COIN Ops both in practice and theory.

There are those who don't have this life experience....that's OK.

The thing is, those who haven't bothered to study it at all criticize those who have despite often being cheerleaders of Bush and Iraq without realizing that the COIN arguments being presented to them were made by those who turned Iraq around. These ignorant people are stupid and exceedingly uneducated. They don't even know the basis of what they discuss.

Smugly insulting the entire forum b/c they allegedly don't know as much as you about a particular topic is in bad taste.

I'm not sure he did the entire forum. But he's not wrong in his assertion that many people here simply don't understand anything in this context. I can name plenty of them.

Had he presented this information in response to a thread that had faulty premises on COIN Ops, then I would understand.

If what you say is true, this is all the more reason he should have begun the thread with a series of easy-to-understand bullets educating those that aren't informed.

The thing is, those who are ignorant wish to remain ignorant. No amount of being nice to them and easy to understand will change that.
 
There are those of us who are well nuanced in COIN Ops both in practice and theory.

There are those who don't have this life experience....that's OK.

Smugly insulting the entire forum b/c they allegedly don't know as much as you about a particular topic is in bad taste.

Had he presented this information in response to a thread that had faulty premises on COIN Ops, then I would understand.

If what you say is true, this is all the more reason he should have begun the thread with a series of easy-to-understand bullets educating those that aren't informed.

I think the poll question isn't necessarily germane to the topic he discusses.


Any time you are ready Whug, come on down to Middle East forum. Then, when you tell them that you worked with and talked with the Sons of Iraq and what that achieved in Iraq you can be denounced as a terrorists as well.

There are many posters who are interested in the subject of counter-terrorism and COIN, and there are a few who think that any talk about extremist groups equates to supporting that extremist group.

THis thread was a direct rebuttal to that small group of posters, and, upon deliberation, was moved out of the forum to give it wider view and discussion.

The context is not clear upon moving the thread, but it is a direct rebuttal to small number of posters in the ME forum who view accurately describing Hamas's intentions as directly supporting terrorism. That is the context. This is a rebuttal to a small group of posters who think there are 'real' terrorists stalking the halls of debatepolitics.com.
 
A:
Interestingly enough, YOU are one of the reasons this was started, and it was not started as a poll. This was in a direct rebuttal to your, and a few other posters, who continually respond to any discussion of terrorists groups by claiming that those who seek to understand them, even with the intent of taking them apart, are really terrorists.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have me confused with someone else. I have never said that. If you find proof that I did, I would be happy to admit it. I would advocate understanding terrorist groups and the cultures in which insurgencies are fought.

Hamas's actions are listed in some detail in the original post, and you and others, routinely call those making the posts Hamas supporters, terrorist sympathizers, and out right terrorists.

I have never mentioned one thing about Hamas in any post I have ever had on DP. Ever. I stick to what I know, which is Iraq (primarily) and AFG.

So man up, make your case, and demonstrate how that post equates to supporting terrorists. You have made that claim for months on the forum, now prove it.

Again, I'm sorry, I have never made this argument. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about and frankly, I'm confused at exactly what point you are trying to make?

You really must have me confused with someone else.
 
Historically, the most ruthless CI campaigns were generally the most successful. Just sayin'...
 
Any time you are ready Whug, come on down to Middle East forum. Then, when you tell them that you worked with and talked with the Sons of Iraq and what that achieved in Iraq you can be denounced as a terrorists as well.

In fact I have, in Salah din Province and Kirkuk Province. And been an advisor to an IA battalion, and did company-level COIN and stability ops in Mosul for a year. To call someone who worked with SOI a terrorist would be to call myself one...would that make sense?

There are many posters who are interested in the subject of counter-terrorism and COIN, and there are a few who think that any talk about extremist groups equates to supporting that extremist group.

I really think you are way off base here...who has done that? Not me.

THis thread was a direct rebuttal to that small group of posters, and, upon deliberation, was moved out of the forum to give it wider view and discussion.

OK, I'm certainly not one of them; why did you accuse me of that?

The context is not clear upon moving the thread, but it is a direct rebuttal to small number of posters in the ME forum who view accurately describing Hamas's intentions as directly supporting terrorism. That is the context. This is a rebuttal to a small group of posters who think there are 'real' terrorists stalking the halls of debatepolitics.com.

Well that sounds pretty dumb. But I imagine if you were a Hamas supporter on DP, then someone would call you a terrorist. Just like if you said you were pro-choice, someone would call you a baby killer (which of course isn't true).

Sounds like you are a little thin skinned.

Oh, and P.S., quit accusing me of posting things that I absolutely did not.
 
I think it is vitally important to know one's enemy. In the case of Hamas, this would entail a complete understanding of their propaganda techniques, especially in regards to the way they use the internet.

As far as supporting or not supporting terrorism, it is not the understanding of , say, Hamas that indicates one is a supporter, but the advocacy of their points of view, and manipulative attempts to justify their techniques.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have me confused with someone else. I have never said that. If you find proof that I did, I would be happy to admit it. I would advocate understanding terrorist groups and the cultures in which insurgencies are fought.



I have never mentioned one thing about Hamas in any post I have ever had on DP. Ever. I stick to what I know, which is Iraq (primarily) and AFG.



Again, I'm sorry, I have never made this argument. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about and frankly, I'm confused at exactly what point you are trying to make?

You really must have me confused with someone else.

Kansas:
It was not meant for you.

The explanantion you got was why this thread appeared and why it seems angry. It was to establish the context of the original post.

This is not a direct rebuttal to you, but to a small group of posters who continually jump in and call those who are trying to explain why extremist groups are doing what they are doing, what they hope to achieve, and effective ways to stop it with, "You are a terrorist."

If my explanation implied that I thought you were one of those posters, I apologize.

Again, the number of posters doing this is small, but I, and a few other posters who have repeatedly endured this behavior simply want the comments to either be proven or to stop. The intent of this thread is to offer a fuller explanation of why studying these groups in important, particularly if we want to prevent them from suceeding. Previous, less direct, attempts at explanation were ignored.

This is a gauntlet. This is the demand that this small number of posters publically explain themselves.
 
I think it is vitally important to know one's enemy. In the case of Hamas, this would entail a complete understanding of their propaganda techniques, especially in regards to the way they use the internet.

As far as supporting or not supporting terrorism, it is not the understanding of , say, Hamas that indicates one is a supporter, but the advocacy of their points of view, and manipulative attempts to justify their techniques.

Well, then explain how you exgage in a discussion about Hamas and their attentions without having it appear that someone is advocating their points of view. Explain how someone points to what they are doing and the reason why without appearing to advocate for the group using the tactic in your view?

Finally, when the vast mojority end with, "If this is what group X is doing, and our policy is not addressing it, then perhaps maybe we should shift our policy to better confront it," how exactly does that equate to being a terrorist?

How exactly do you have a discussion about Hamas, what its intention are, what it is doing and why it is doing it (Understanding your enemy) without being called a terrorist by YOU.

We never actually get the the solution set, because you are busy denouncing the study of the goup as material support to the group. Do you seriously think that there are terrorists members stalking the halls of the forum? Or might it be more appropriate to extend a degree of courtesy and try asking for clarification from time to time?

So, there is the challenge. Show how the original message in this thread provides support to Hamas, advocates their position, or is an attempt to manipulatively justify what they are doing.

Pony up. Make your case.
 
Last edited:
Historically, the most ruthless CI campaigns were generally the most successful. Just sayin'...

Not true, at least not if we buy into the continium of conflict found in Clausewitz (I happen to). Very brutal COIN efforts may appear to eliminate an insurgency, but the effect is only temporary. A generation or so later, the insurgency re-appears and is ever more brutal and violent.

Saddam's attacks on the Southern Shia did restor order for a time, but, as US forces enetering in Najaf and Karbala discovered, there were certainly Shia resistance forces in the area.

How mant times did Britain try and solve its Irish problem through brutality? And in the end the Isle was divided and the last counter-insurgency seems to have effectively put the issue to rest on a large scale (still some minor criminal groups hiding behind the IRA mantel).

we can also look at German actions during WWII in the Balkans and other areas, and these areas were hardly pacified even in the face of near total German brutality.

The Balkans themselves are a case study in how brutality can tear an area assunder. the tangled hostory of one groups hero being every other groups villian points to the problems of brutality as policy.

Brutality, particularly in the modern world, can have dramatic effects. The Kosovo ethnic cleansing provoked a massive NATO military intervention.

Brutality in Burma may have capped the immediate problem, but would you be willing to bet that it is the last unrest generated by the inequalities and injstices in that system?

In the end, brutality rarely works as a comprehensive solution.
 
A:
Interestingly enough, YOU are one of the reasons this was started, and it was not started as a poll. This was in a direct rebuttal to your, and a few other posters, who continually respond to any discussion of terrorists groups by claiming that those who seek to understand them, even with the intent of taking them apart, are really terrorists.

Hamas's actions are listed in some detail in the original post, and you and others, routinely call those making the posts Hamas supporters, terrorist sympathizers, and out right terrorists.

So man up, make your case, and demonstrate how that post equates to supporting terrorists. You have made that claim for months on the forum, now prove it.
1) You were never in your entire time here was called a terrorist.
That is, unless you see terrorist supporter and outright terrorist at the same light.

2) You were called a terrorist supporter for a whole different wording, and "understanding your enemy" is not even one of the reasons for this label, so your post here is pretty much irrelevant to the reason of your labeling.
 
Well, then explain how you exgage in a discussion about Hamas and their attentions without having it appear that someone is advocating their points of view. Explain how someone points to what they are doing and the reason why without appearing to advocate for the group using the tactic in your view?

Easy -- by not actually advocating them, by not promoting them, and especially, by not mocking those who oppose them.


Finally, when the vast mojority end with, "If this is what group X is doing, and our policy is not addressing it, then perhaps maybe we should shift our policy to better confront it," how exactly does that equate to being a terrorist?

It doesn't, and nobody has ever said it was


How exactly do you have a discussion about Hamas, what its intention are, what it is doing and why it is doing it (Understanding your enemy) without being called a terrorist by YOU.

A good start might be to stop referring to their intentional murder of Jews as "doing what needs to be done" , while mocking those who oppose such barbarity. Perhaps this has never been explained to you, but most people do not like murder. Your mocking them for not supporting murder most certainy does give every indication of your supporting such action, since otherwise you would be joining them in denunciation. Reacting against intentional murder is a normal, human reaction, and so your saying that Murder is "doing what needs to be done" while acting as if the normal, human reaction were something to be mocked is hardly the stuff of "understanding" terrorism -- it is the stuff of promoting, supporting, and justifying it.
 
1) You were never in your entire time here was called a terrorist.
That is, unless you see terrorist supporter and outright terrorist at the same light.

2) You were called a terrorist supporter for a whole different wording, and "understanding your enemy" is not even one of the reasons for this label, so your post here is pretty much irrelevant to the reason of your labeling.

No A, I, and several other members of the forum, have been called terrorists, extremists, or some other similiar term found in a theasarus by you.

In fact, just yesterday, you called me a 'Hamas Supporter' after making a clear case that the group was a terrorist group. How many similiar insults have been leveled against creation for example?

So here is your chance. Pony up, and prove that I am a Hamas supporter. Same challenge as G-man got. Look at the initial post in this thread and make your case, or shove it.

Otherwise same question, how do posters discuss Hamas and other ME factions without being denounced as a terrorist by the likes of you and a small coterie of other posters?

Everytime a poster discusses what Hamas or Hezbollah is doing and how best counter it with an eye on pointing out that Western Nations are not doing it, the response is inevitably the same, "terrorist."

If you cannot defend your statements now, when called directly to task in direct response to your comments, then you owe me, and a good number of other posters, an apology.

Pony up and describe how the initial post in this thread equates to supporting, indeed advancing, Hamas's interests. Step up with an explanantion.
 
Easy -- by not actually advocating them, by not promoting them, and especially, by not mocking those who oppose them.




It doesn't, and nobody has ever said it was




A good start might be to stop referring to their intentional murder of Jews as "doing what needs to be done" , while mocking those who oppose such barbarity. Perhaps this has never been explained to you, but most people do not like murder. Your mocking them for not supporting murder most certainy does give every indication of your supporting such action, since otherwise you would be joining them in denunciation. Reacting against intentional murder is a normal, human reaction, and so your saying that Murder is "doing what needs to be done" while acting as if the normal, human reaction were something to be mocked is hardly the stuff of "understanding" terrorism -- it is the stuff of promoting, supporting, and justifying it.

Really, so what exactly in the initial post is advocating Hamas?

In war, you do what needs to be done. Not sure how that is advocating for Hamas or any other terrorist group either? That little truth applies to combatants in any type of war. If you disagree so be it, but that statement clearly is not support for terrorists is it?

I watched plenty of people die in Iraq. Lots. I walked into rape and torture rooms with smell of sweat and blood still hanging in the air. Our enemy in Iraq was 'terrorist' and 'insurgent', and we defeated them not by saying, "you are murderers," but by analyizing what they were doing, finding vulnerabilities, and then violently exploiting them. Still don't see how saying people die in war supports terrorism or is indicative of being a terrorist.

The intent of that comment, having put it into practice in combat, is to acknowledge that are enemies are fighting 'unfairly', so what?, and still having the DUTY to fight them despite what they are doing. That is the duty of soldier in battle isn't it? To defeat the enemy, not whine about what he is doing. Do you seriously think that just because you do not agree with what your enemy is doing, find it horrific in fact, that he will stop doing it?

For example, I certainly do not support rape rooms, and when we found them, we went about finding the guys who set it up and killed or captured them. The people certainly knew what was going on, and when the actual bad guys are dragged out in restraints or body bags they know what the hell is going on. You tell me which is more effective, denouncing those who set up rape rooms, or going after them and killing them?

Tell me how does thumping your chest and saying, "Murder is wrong!" stop terrorists? Do you think that they are going to say, "What? Murder is wrong! Bin Laden, you lied to me!!" They are using tactics deliberately to generate fear for political purposes. So should we perhaps figure out what they are doing, why they are doing it, what legitimate grievances they have tapped into for exploitation and recruiting purposes, with an eyes to developing a counter-narrative and finding weaknesses and vulnerabilities to explot violently?

And how do you define the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent? How were we able to to exploit the differences in the Anbar insurency to create the Sons of Iraq? How were we able to split the Madhi Army from the JAM special groups and facilitate its transformation into a charity group? How is it that hostile villages in Malaysia became recruiting grounds for the Home Guard? Why are we reaching out to moderate factions of the Taliban? Why is political reconcilliation a key axiom of COIN? If GEN Petreus tells us to reduce the number of enemy combatants to the smallest number of unreconcillables possible, those that we will then kill or capture, what exactly does he mean?

Now please, answer the simple question, how do you discuss what Hamas, or indeed any of these terrorist or insurgent groups are doing without being denounced for, "promoting, supporting, and justifying it," as you have just done once again.

Do you honestly think that you are engaged in a debate with actual terrorists on this forum? Seriously?

You are very good at making emotive accussations, but now it is time to pony up. Show how the initial post supports terrorism, go through it and explain how that is support for Hamas.
 
Last edited:
Now please, answer the simple question, how do you discuss what Hamas, or indeed any of these terrorist or insurgent groups are doing without being denounced for, "promoting, supporting, and justifying it,"

.

I discuss Hamas all the time and have never received such feedback.
 
I discuss Hamas all the time and have never received such feedback.

You give it Gardner, all the time. You just did it again it your previous post.

"it is the stuff of promoting, supporting, and justifying it."

I, and other posters, have been called a terrorists or a terrorist sympathizer by you on dozens of occassions while trying to discuss what Hamas was doing, why they are doing it, and how to get in front it.

Thus far, the poll is pretty clear. Talking about your enemy with a clear grasp of capabilities, intentions, tactics, and ideology, particular in reference to the polices that should be enacted against these things, is not support for terrorism.

You disagree, make your case.
 
Last edited:
You give it Gardner, all the time. You just did it again it your previous post.

"it is the stuff of promoting, supporting, and justifying it."

I, and other posters, have been called a terrorists or a terrorist sympathizer by you on dozens of occassions while trying to discuss what Hamas was doing, why they are doing it, and how to get in front it.

Thus far, the poll is pretty clear. Talking about your enemy with a clear grasp of capabilities, intentions, tactics, and ideology, particular in reference to the polices that should be enacted against these things, is not support for terrorism.

You disagree, make your case.

People voted for your straw man. You are only erecting more here.


I already detailed that which reveals more than this "understanding" of yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom