"Surprise, cockfags!"

[nachtjaeger]

If the IRA had stuck to killing British soldiers, The RIC, the "Black & Tans," and members of the Orange Order, I might have joined up myself. But when they stooped to killing women and children, and dealing drugs to finance their operations, they lost a LOT of support. Once the PIRA "Provos" went down the path of blood and terror, they should have been dealt with very harshly- not that the Brits ever needed much of an excuse.
IIRC the US Justice Department and State Department, the FBI, Scotland Yard and MI5 were all over NORAID like stink on a skunk, and could never prove any illegal connection between them and the PIRA. If such had been proven, NORAID should have been shut down, and its members with direct knowledge of their support of terrorism should have been jailed.
I sincerely hope the US government is giving the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and similar organizations the same level of scrutiny.

As to the old "win the hearts and minds of the people" argument, it can't be done. The only way we can win this war is to kill the enemy faster than they can replace their numbers, cut off their sources of supply, and destroy their ability to wage war. That, in fact, is the only way any war has ever been won.

We know where the Terrorists are getting their supplies and support from. We know who is supplying and supporting them. What's stopping us from winning this stupid war? F*****g lines on a map!

Except, of course, that this is not a war of nation states, or even of economics. It is a war of ideas. It cannot be won by body-count (every piece of ordnance "we" use gives "them" another few recruits). It can only be won on a hearts-and-minds basis. Which is a problem, as Tony Blair had no heart, and George Dubya no mind.

Tangentially, I remember a time when our own local terrorists - the IRA - were funded by an organisation called NORAID. And where were they based? And did we bomb their homes?

[Duncan Edwards]

Whatever a "cockfag" is and whatever state of sobriety it was issued in I am certain it was intended to be derisive. That the barbarians in question deserve whatever nasty sobriquets we can hurl at them is something on which we can all agree. Whatever cause beckons you to blow up an airliner in the name of righteousness is misguided at best. Relying on the general incompetence of our enemies is a defense that won't save us every time.

It can only be won on a hearts-and-minds basis

If only our enemies were so thoughtful. Hurling a treatise on hijacking a major religion to put a megalomaniac on a throne would have done substantially less damage on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately the heartless and mindless power junkies of the Islamic world were readily able to recruit stooges for far greater atrocities.

Hearts and minds are absolutely the vulnerable spots of the enemy but bombs and bullets are sometimes required to deliver the message. A good example of hearts and minds is being played out this day on the streets of Iran. The greatest fear of the mad mullahs who run the show there is taking root amongst that nations restive population. Despite their worst efforts at supplying bombs and hate to terrorists in Iraq they are now facing an increasingly stable, relatively free, and internationally accepted Iraq. It is a war of ideas that they know they cannot win and they fear it more than anything in the arsenals of free countries. We can only hope that hearts and minds are sufficient to persuade them that building nuclear weapons are not the answer. If that does not prove out then a nightmare scenario that will make us long for the old days of the cold war will happen. Asking them nicely to stop, even by the French, has not been successful thus far.

Why is that?

I am a fan of the Tennessee Titans football team. I have never missed a single minute of any game they have ever played in their home stadium. Win or lose, good or bad, rain or shine, I'm always there. I will never agree that my team should accept a negotiated settlement for any contest. Do not speak to me about the supposed superiority of any other team because I won't listen. The word fan is derived from the word fanatic. I am indeed fanatical about my team. In similar fashion I don't expect the fanatics of the other side to simply agree that I am right so a battle must be held on the field to determine who is correct.

We have street crime in this country. A hearts and minds campaign has been waged since time immemorial to get the bad guys to behave. Preachers, civic leaders, mothers, fathers, doctors, do gooders, philosiphers, lawyers, and many, many, others have tried to win the hearts and minds of the criminal element. Hundres of billions of dollars in law enforcment and social aid are poured into this problem every year but without success. As long as one guy out there thinks he can get something the easy way, or likes raping and robbing and murdering, it will be a war on crime without end. I don't believe this failure means we should send all the police home and stop locking our doors.

I cite these two examples to illustrate how you deal with fanatics. A game or serious discussion is one thing but these are fanatics who don't see things the way civilized people do. Where you see freedom of speech and equality for women they see only blasphemy. What you call democracy and the marketplace of ideas is their anarchy. Freedom of or from religion does not exist at all. Leaders are appointed by providence not popular vote. Our little earth has become too small for such diametrically opposed philosophies to exist together.

The only way you negotiate with a terrorist is to cut off his head. - James Woods

Killing people is messy and it doesn't make friends. Our enemies have illustrated that with countless examples and they aren't done yet. In spite of that we slew hundreds of thousands of fanatical followers in Europe and Japan and still remain close friends with both peoples. In the end our ideas captured their hearts and minds.

The US and NATO moved into the former Yugoslavia to protect Muslims from Christian Serbs.

The US invaded Kuwait to restore that country to its Muslim inhabitants after it was taken from them by other Muslims from Iraq.

The US altruistically went to Somalia to bring food to its Muslim population.

We have spent decades and earned much emnity by trying to create homes for the Muslim Palestinians.

The bloodiest war of the late twentieth century was fought between two Muslim nations, Iran and Iraq.

I could make a much longer list but this suffices to make my point. Any Muslim on earth who thinks he is being oppressed or mistreated needs to look much closer to home than Washington or London. I think in the end this will indeed win the battle of hearts and minds. Before that happens though a lot of bad guys and no small number of unfortunate innocents are going to get bombs dropped on their heads.

Surprise, Cockfags!

[Lomax]

IIRC the US Justice Department and State Department, the FBI, Scotland Yard and MI5 were all over NORAID like stink on a skunk, and could never prove any illegal connection between them and the PIRA.

Pardon? They were running fucking coach tours. Bunches of American "tourists" were given tours of the Republican areas to see what their donations had purchased. They were treated to the sight of masked men waving automatic weapons. There was much cheering - and the cameras always managed to be there.

The only way we can win this war is to kill the enemy faster than they can replace their numbers, cut off their sources of supply, and destroy their ability to wage war. That, in fact, is the only way any war has ever been won.

That method was tried in Vietnam. Remind me how that turned out.

[Aiko]

101. Modern conflict is becoming increasingly complex. Inter-state conflicts,
fought by national forces within a defined and often geographically contiguous area,
such as the Gulf War, are largely being replaced by intra-state conflicts, or asymmetric
attacks by transnational groups. These usually involve a wide variety of actors and
parties, often in loose or ad hoc alliances, frequently operating outside the geographic
area in dispute, or even globally. The causes of these conflicts are equally complex;
religion, ethnicity, politics, poverty and perceived oppression are among the many
factors behind them. Military action alone cannot resolve such situations, but it can
set the conditions for resolution by other actors. Therefore there is a need for coherent
activity – a cross-government approach – from all instruments of national power, of
which the military is but one, and where possible with concerned international
organisations (IO).

(source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8016237/Joint ... mber-2007-)

Personally I consider military action to be a very, very, *very* last resort to resolve a conflict, and even then military force alone cannot be the answer.

[nachtjaeger]

Sun Tzu and I agree with you:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... n_tzu.html

101. Modern conflict is becoming increasingly complex. Inter-state conflicts,
fought by national forces within a defined and often geographically contiguous area,
such as the Gulf War, are largely being replaced by intra-state conflicts, or asymmetric
attacks by transnational groups. These usually involve a wide variety of actors and
parties, often in loose or ad hoc alliances, frequently operating outside the geographic
area in dispute, or even globally. The causes of these conflicts are equally complex;
religion, ethnicity, politics, poverty and perceived oppression are among the many
factors behind them. Military action alone cannot resolve such situations, but it can
set the conditions for resolution by other actors. Therefore there is a need for coherent
activity – a cross-government approach – from all instruments of national power, of
which the military is but one, and where possible with concerned international
organisations (IO).

(source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8016237/Joint ... mber-2007-)

Personally I consider military action to be a very, very, *very* last resort to resolve a conflict, and even then military force alone cannot be the answer.

[nachtjaeger]

The only way we can win this war is to kill the enemy faster than they can replace their numbers, cut off their sources of supply, and destroy their ability to wage war. That, in fact, is the only way any war has ever been won.

That method was tried in Vietnam. Remind me how that turned out.

Based on my studies of the history of the Vietnam war, including conversations with veterans, I respectfully disagree.

It had been decided that bombing of the North might encourage them to attend peace talks. Johnson therefore authorized a very restricted air offensive dubbed “ROLLING THUNDER.” ROLLING THUNDER was denied targets near populated areas. It was denied targets that might permantly damage North Vietnam’s industrial base. It was denied targets that might endanger “neutral” i.e. Chinese or 'Soviet ships or personnel. The brave airmen given this task promptly dubbed the offensive “OOZING FLATULANCE.” (This is not a direct quote.) Johnson delighted in bragging that the military were unable to “even bomb an outhouse” without his express approval. (This too is not a direct quote.)

Wars are won by seizing the initiative and destroying the enemy’s war making potential. The commanding US general, Gen. William Westmoreland at the time, was denied authority to launch a war winning attack on North Vietnam’s ability to wage war. He could not attack North Vietnam. He could not attack North Vietnamese forces in the nominally neutral Laos and Cambodia. The only option available to him was one that every military leader wants desperately to avoid…a war of attrition.

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmavietnamwar.htm

[Duncan Edwards]

That method was tried in Vietnam. Remind me how that turned out.

Not trying to pick on just you Lomax. I just wanted to bring up how everyone likes to point to Viet Nam as an example when it's not. The US got itself in the middle of a civil war there and tried to defeat the popular side. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Sadaam Hussein, Iran's Ayatollahs, and terrorists in general, are not widely loved by anyone. Yes, they have their share of sycophantic followers but its a very limited following. This time we are at least fighting for the "good guys" so to speak. Another thing worth pointing out is that the nation of Viet Nam was never a direct threat to the United States but that is not the case with the aforementioned bad guys. All of them have already killed Americans and their own people in large numbers and they are actively trying to do a lot more.

Now I will remind you how Viet Nam ended - we won. Our goal was to confront, contain, and defeat Communism. If you put Viet Nam in context with its place in history it was only one battle in a long war where we emerged victorious. We are in another very long war where it will be hard to see the enemies face at all times. Sometimes we will use a carrot and sometimes we will use a stick. Sometimes the individual battles may resemble Viet Nam on the surface but in reality its nothing like it.

[nachtjaeger]

I think the citizens of the former Republic of South Vietnam might disagree with you on a couple of points, Duncan. 'Nam wasn't a Civil War, any more than the Korean War was. Same game plan: Communist forces in the North, lavishly supplied with the latest weapons by both the PRC and USSR, invaded the democratic, capitalist South. Even if the Communists had been the "popular side" in 'Nam, the breaking of the Tet truce and the bloodbath that followed changed that in a hurry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF

That method was tried in Vietnam. Remind me how that turned out.

Not trying to pick on just you Lomax. I just wanted to bring up how everyone likes to point to Viet Nam as an example when it's not. The US got itself in the middle of a civil war there and tried to defeat the popular side. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Sadaam Hussein, Iran's Ayatollahs, and terrorists in general, are not widely loved by anyone. Yes, they have their share of sycophantic followers but its a very limited following. This time we are at least fighting for the "good guys" so to speak. Another thing worth pointing out is that the nation of Viet Nam was never a direct threat to the United States but that is not the case with the aforementioned bad guys. All of them have already killed Americans and their own people in large numbers and they are actively trying to do a lot more.

Now I will remind you how Viet Nam ended - we won. Our goal was to confront, contain, and defeat Communism. If you put Viet Nam in context with its place in history it was only one battle in a long war where we emerged victorious. We are in another very long war where it will be hard to see the enemies face at all times. Sometimes we will use a carrot and sometimes we will use a stick. Sometimes the individual battles may resemble Viet Nam on the surface but in reality its nothing like it.

[Aiko]

Sun Tzu and I agree with you:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

I don't like that quote very much, because Sun Tzu seems to emphasize the importance of display of military power with it. Taken out of context it allows for a wider interpretation, but I do not think that is how he meant it.

Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.

Taking that into account, terrorist organizations are excellent in defense. I think far too few people realize that.

[Billie Bonce]

Sorry guys but I have to say this.

It's ridiculous how you Americans see the world outside the America. You see it very differently than it looks from another sites. You see what you want to see or what you want to believe in, and that is very far from the truth.

And no, I'm not a terrorist and I don't support terrorism. But in the modern world the "fight against terrorism" became a good excuse for virtually anything: murders, war, violation of basic human rights. With today's technologies of brain washing it's so easy to point at anybody (any country, religion, nation) and proclaim them terrorists, then to do anything the government wants. And the crowds will applaud, "how nice! we killed another thousand (or million) of terrorists!"

Seriously, today's world is much more resembles the one described by George Orwell in his "Nineteen Eighty-Four" than you want to believe.