Is it time to take the bull by the horns?

[david999]

It's well documented that the terrorists do not play by the same rules as the rest of the military world. Since none of them are registered nations, they are technically not prone to the limitations of rules of war, so why should play by our rules?

Well, General McLellen of the Civil War once said "War is cuelty. There is no point in trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps we should take that advice and fight fire with fire, because as it stands, we're fighting a gun fight with a knife.

Now, by "fire with fire," do I mean employ suicide bombings? No, but what about other tactics, such as the lack of a gray area? Instead of having partial allies, an opposing nation is either with us or against us. If they're not with us, they're against us, no other choices. If they're against us, or so much as roll their eyes at us, bomb them all to Hell. Throw remorse and sympathy to the wind, and recognize that it's a dog eat dog world.

And how about prisoners? Prisoners of war are typically not supposed to be treated violently, but since we're not fighting any registered countries (keep in mind I put this in the War on Terror board, not the War on Iraq board), we shouldn't be bound to that rule, or any rules of war for that matter. So, we take prisoners, and torture them into spilling secrets (again, non-nation enemy = no rules of war). We won't kill them, and we'll make it clear to the prisoners that we won't, so they won't think to await their death and die for Allah's cause (which Islam say will give them automatic admission into Paradise), but we WILL torture them with tazer guns and other non-lethal weapons. So they won't eat? Well, we'll shove it down their throats, or inject nuitrition into them if we have to. If they die from the pain, we'll replace them with new prisoners, and best of all, the interrogation sessions are held in more secrecy than the fictional Third Echelon in the book "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell," so the torturers are not bound by politics and red tape.

What's that, you say? That will just make us unpopular? Well guess what, Stephen Hawking, we already are. We're the most hated country in the world. We're like that rich guy down the block who rides in limosines and offers to help people, but no one wants to give him that satisfaction. What could we possibly do that would make us any more unpopular than we already are?

And with that, I close my opening statement. Let the debate begin.

 

[bhkad]

Welcome to DP!

I always have to remind myself why this idea isn't well advised. And I seem to have forgotten again. I think I keep forgetting because a part of me feels exactly the same way. But when I have read various people I respect on the subject they always advise that this isn't the best plan. But as I said, it's often tempting.

"If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war, with every unit of your strength in the first line and waiting to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any), and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you."

--John Arbuthnot Fisher, British Admiral 1841-1920

 

[Monk-Eye]

Power Hungry

"Power Hungry"

We're the most hated country in the world. We're like that rich guy down the block who rides in limosines and offers to help people, but no one wants to give him that satisfaction. What could we possibly do that would make us any more unpopular than we already are?
And with that, I close my opening statement. Let the debate begin.

The US is not hated.
There was initial discontent that the US is going to fight for values greater than trivialized surrender to pervasive ideology.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Power Hungry

Its our Government, and this current administration that is hated, not the American people.

Perhaps we should take that advice and fight fire with fire, because as it stands, we're fighting a gun fight with a knife.

Now, by "fire with fire," do I mean employ suicide bombings? No, but what about other tactics, such as the lack of a gray area? Instead of having partial allies, an opposing nation is either with us or against us. If they're not with us, they're against us, no other choices.

You want our foreign policy to be a mandatory false dichotomy? What kind of divisive nonsense is this? You'll have us create enemies who don't fall for this crap?

If they're against us, or so much as roll their eyes at us, bomb them all to Hell. Throw remorse and sympathy to the wind, and recognize that it's a dog eat dog world.

No, no and hell no. What is wrong with you, you really want to make us the most hated country on the planet? We are not invincible, in fact we are severely weakened.

You seem to think we can take on the whole world, let alone another war in the middle east. What utter warmongering. To what end is this? For what purpose?

And how about prisoners? Prisoners of war are typically not supposed to be treated violently, but since we're not fighting any registered countries (keep in mind I put this in the War on Terror board, not the War on Iraq board), we shouldn't be bound to that rule, or any rules of war for that matter.

You have no respect for the Geneva Convention, the Magna Carta, or any alliance or treaty for that matter. You seem to have no respect for the sovereignty of other nations... You are what is wrong with America.

So, we take prisoners, and torture them into spilling secrets (again, non-nation enemy = no rules of war). We won't kill them, and we'll make it clear to the prisoners that we won't, so they won't think to await their death and die for Allah's cause (which Islam say will give them automatic admission into Paradise), but we WILL torture them with tazer guns and other non-lethal weapons. So they won't eat? Well, we'll shove it down their throats, or inject nuitrition into them if we have to. If they die from the pain, we'll replace them with new prisoners, and best of all, the interrogation sessions are held in more secrecy than the fictional Third Echelon in the book "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell," so the torturers are not bound by politics and red tape.

So you're a torturous terrorist creating madman to boot?

What's that, you say? That will just make us unpopular? Well guess what, Stephen Hawking, we already are. We're the most hated country in the world. We're like that rich guy down the block who rides in limosines and offers to help people, but no one wants to give him that satisfaction. What could we possibly do that would make us any more unpopular than we already are?

And with that, I close my opening statement. Let the debate begin.

What is there to debate? You're clearly dangerous.

Welcome to DP!

I always have to remind myself why this idea isn't well advised. And I seem to have forgotten again. I think I keep forgetting because a part of me feels exactly the same way. But when I have read various people I respect on the subject they always advise that this isn't the best plan. But as I said, it's often tempting.

Total shocker! Who would have thought you would agree with this kind of craziness.

 

[Iriemon]

It's well documented that the terrorists do not play by the same rules as the rest of the military world. Since none of them are registered nations, they are technically not prone to the limitations of rules of war, so why should play by our rules?

Well, General McLellen of the Civil War once said "War is cuelty. There is no point in trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps we should take that advice and fight fire with fire, because as it stands, we're fighting a gun fight with a knife.

Now, by "fire with fire," do I mean employ suicide bombings? No, but what about other tactics, such as the lack of a gray area? Instead of having partial allies, an opposing nation is either with us or against us. If they're not with us, they're against us, no other choices. If they're against us, or so much as roll their eyes at us, bomb them all to Hell. Throw remorse and sympathy to the wind, and recognize that it's a dog eat dog world.

And how about prisoners? Prisoners of war are typically not supposed to be treated violently, but since we're not fighting any registered countries (keep in mind I put this in the War on Terror board, not the War on Iraq board), we shouldn't be bound to that rule, or any rules of war for that matter. So, we take prisoners, and torture them into spilling secrets (again, non-nation enemy = no rules of war). We won't kill them, and we'll make it clear to the prisoners that we won't, so they won't think to await their death and die for Allah's cause (which Islam say will give them automatic admission into Paradise), but we WILL torture them with tazer guns and other non-lethal weapons. So they won't eat? Well, we'll shove it down their throats, or inject nuitrition into them if we have to. If they die from the pain, we'll replace them with new prisoners, and best of all, the interrogation sessions are held in more secrecy than the fictional Third Echelon in the book "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell," so the torturers are not bound by politics and red tape.

What's that, you say? That will just make us unpopular? Well guess what, Stephen Hawking, we already are. We're the most hated country in the world. We're like that rich guy down the block who rides in limosines and offers to help people, but no one wants to give him that satisfaction. What could we possibly do that would make us any more unpopular than we already are?

And with that, I close my opening statement. Let the debate begin.

This is the tactic this Administration has followed. Iraq rolled its eyes and we bombed the hell out of it. We destroyed their army and killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis. We tried to impose a government that was acceptable to us. When Iraqis resisted our rule, we have killed them whenever possible. We have taken them prisoners without due process, locked them away in secret dungeons, and tortured them.

This tactic has been a failure. It has resulted in an huge increase in terrorism, a huge cost in terms of lives and treasure, and international isolation, as you point out.

Given the record of failure this strategy has produced thus far, it would be the height of folly to continue it or magnify it, IMO.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Power Hungry

You want our foreign policy to be a mandatory false dichotomy? What kind of divisive nonsense is this? You'll have us create enemies who don't fall for this crap?

No, no and hell no. What is wrong with you, you really want to make us the most hated country on the planet? We are not invincible, in fact we are severely weakened.

You seem to think we can take on the whole world, let alone another war in the middle east. What utter warmongering. To what end is this? For what purpose?

You have no respect for the Geneva Convention, the Magna Carta, or any alliance or treaty for that matter. You seem to have no respect for the sovereignty of other nations... You are what is wrong with America.

So you're a torturous terrorist creating madman to boot?

What is there to debate? You're clearly dangerous.

Total shocker! Who would have thought you would agree with this kind of craziness.

His goal seems to be to validate radicals' claim that we really are the Great Satan.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Responsibility Actions

"Responsibility Actions"

Its our Government, and this current administration that is hated, not the American people.

Separation of the person from the action preserves communication as selective use of speech makes huge differences in outcome.
The phrase, "You are an @$$." is different from the phrase, "You are acting as an @$$."
One phrase allows transcendence while the other conditions permanence.
Earning respect by acting with respect is a good idea.
Some things the administration does are assinine.
Some perceptions opposing policies are assinine.

David999 is arguing for fire against an ideology of fire.
There is a limit to that policy before it becomes self defeating.
Containment and diminishment of the intolerant, agressive islamofascist ideology is necessary. But I agree there are rules even in war.

There is dissonance in how to deal with an anticipation of overwhelming odds.
A problem is that in order to defeat an idealogy it may/likely require/s conversion to a different ideal.
Secular societies have been adhering to an ideology that it is inherently incorrect to force an ideology.
Many worry that the pacificity allows others to ignore and defeat their freedoms as reason is often slow and unpredictable.
Twelve centuries earlier europe sought protection from islam by christian conversion.
Now europeans cannot fathom conversion of the religious source, or insulation from it by separatism, but realizing its condition of danger has pursued local enforcement of private secularism within public institutions. With birth rates comparatively low to that of immigrants and the continued influx of immigrants that remain locally separated without conversion, it is a matter of time before europe falls into greater discontent.
Now the opposite effect is not allowed, europeans are not migrating to desert dirt farms and neither would they be afforded tolerance for conversion efforts that the contrary seeks to deny them in their own house.

 

[DivineComedy]

Is it time to take the bull by the horns?


Damn, someone wants a cruel war. A-Okay.

For couch potato military strategy see both of these fine movies “Spartacus” and “Zulu.”

We faint so their horns clash. :shock:

It’s a military strategy that is not in the Fabian lukewarm “liberal” arts of war of containment, not in the book of “Moron” or the burning Bush Bible, but it works by horrible accident when you include the Koran and the book of very “liberal” porkers.

*****

“Soon you'll be saying brave and France; terrorist and testicles, Paris Hilton and smart. The words simply don't go together, and that's all there is to it.” G-d loves even a eunuch; better to marry than to burn. So yell at me for going down to the pier and trying to convert some USS Norton Sound lesbeans. Even my lesbean drinking buddy understood that one. Bigot, or troll? That is the real question.

 

[Francaisforever]

Yep david, but what you forget in your argument is that supposedly the US invaded Iraq to free its people ( I think that was the 4th excuses). Now wouldn't it be ironic to have the US forces killing as much Iraquis civilians that Saddam was? Suddenly, according to your theory, the US forces would be on an equal footing that the Saddam's death squads........What an accomplishment. Of course they wouldn't drill people skull with Black & Decker, or cut fingers one at a time, not as much dramatic but very efficient, they would just use napalm or WP. Hey I think it's not categorized as WMDs.......What a relief! After all, never mind everything that was said and written, why don't you nuke Iraq and get it over with? 25M people dead wouldn't matter that much and you would really have a chance to get all the terrorists and to scare evryone one else for that matter. It's called killing 2 birds with one stones.........or maybe not, there is 2 B Muslims and a lot of poverty. Nice try tough guy.

 

[Tashah]

Since a 'cessation of hostilities' does not exist in Jihadi doctrine, the Islamist war against America will continue no matter what the US does. The one thing the Islamists fear most is the advance of democracy in the Middle East. Thus, the Islamists also wage war against any Muslim population in which the seed of democracy is sprouting. This Islamist assault against fellow Muslims is evident and obvious in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. Democracy and modernity are anathema to Islamist doctrine. They can never co-exist. Certainly one may argue tactics against the antidemocratic forces, but there is no going back.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Since a 'cessation of hostilities' does not exist in Jihadi doctrine, the Islamist war against America will continue no matter what the US does. The one thing the Islamists fear most is the advance of democracy in the Middle East. Thus, the Islamists also wage war against any Muslim population in which the seed of democracy is sprouting. This Islamist assault against fellow Muslims is evident and obvious in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. Democracy and modernity are anathema to Islamist doctrine. They can never co-exist. Certainly one may argue tactics against the antidemocratic forces, but there is no going back.

I think everything but the bold was brilliantly written. The underlined was just too absolute and vague to me.

 

[Tashah]

I think everything but the bold was brilliantly written. The underlined was just too absolute and vague to me.

An absolute statement does not necessarily infer an erroneous one. As I stated in the opening sentence of that post, the Jihadi will continue to prosecute the war no matter what the US does. Make no mistake, Islamist doctrine demands an active/violent jihad in which time is not a doctrinal consideration. It matters not if victory consumes a decade or a century.

After driving the godless Soviets from Afghanistan, the Islamists have waged a relentless war against the Great Satan America, the Little Satan Israel, the United Nations (an infidel construct), member states of the EU, 'apostate' Muslim governments, contemporary Islam, non-Salafist Muslims, gender equality, liberalism, pluralism, and democracy.

From an Islamist viewpoint, the only way they can suffer defeat is if they lose the internal struggle between Islamic radicalism and democracy/modernity currently being waged in the Muslim umma (the global Muslim community). Their greatest fear is that contemporary Muslims - in toto - will decide to embrace democracy and reject a return to medieval Islam. The Islamists will utilize whatever it takes to prevent this fatal ideological swing. Warfare, terrorism, assassination, and the slaughter of their own brethern.

There is no going back. Whether you like it or not, this Islamist war against democracy/modernity will continue until radical Salafist theology is either ascendent or crushed. There is no middle ground in this. Victory or defeat are the sole possible outcomes.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's well documented that the terrorists do not play by the same rules as the rest of the military world. <snip>

Can't beat 'em join 'em, eh?

 

[Iriemon]

Since a 'cessation of hostilities' does not exist in Jihadi doctrine, the Islamist war against America will continue no matter what the US does. The one thing the Islamists fear most is the advance of democracy in the Middle East. Thus, the Islamists also wage war against any Muslim population in which the seed of democracy is sprouting. This Islamist assault against fellow Muslims is evident and obvious in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. Democracy and modernity are anathema to Islamist doctrine. They can never co-exist. Certainly one may argue tactics against the antidemocratic forces, but there is no going back.

One can never go back, however that does not imply that maintaining an indefinite occupation of Iraq, or further aggression against Islamic nations, is necessarily an ineffective way to fight the war.

One of the greatest threats to democracy is fear of security. Folks will give up freedom for security if they feel it is necessary. We see that in the US with the debate over all kinds of activities that impinge upon freedom but are justified as a matter of security.

Unjustified US military aggression against Muslims produces this same fear in them. Unjustified US occupation of Iraq inflames their sense of pride and threatens their culture and religion. It motivates the radical elements at the expense of the moderate elements. We see this hints of this in the election of the most anti-American radical in Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and other places in the ME where growing resentment towards what are perceived (with reason) as unjustified US military agression is producing greater support for radical groups throughout the region.

We do not help the forces of moderation by fueling the forces of anti-American radicalism with arrogant and agressive posturing and actions. "The Islamist war against America will continue no matter what the US does"; but we can certainly decrease (or increase) support for that war by Islamists by what we do.

There is no going back. But we could stop going backwards.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you really want to hit the Salfist jihadis where they are weakest and where it will hurt them the most in their battle for the umma, translate books into Arabic.

Want to promote democracy? Give em food for thought. Democracy is only as good as it's electorate is informed.

 

[Tashah]

One can never go back, however that does not imply that maintaining an indefinite occupation of Iraq, or further aggression against Islamic nations, is necessarily an ineffective way to fight the war.

Since no arbitrary/artificial pullout date for a withdrawal from Iraq exists, a stay of any length is an indeterminate quantity. Perhaps you meant a 'continuous' occupation? A lengthy presence perhaps, but I highly doubt such a presence would demand the current force structure.

Further aggression against Islamic nations? If that is where the enemy resides, then that is precisely where aggressive intervention is necessary. Just to be clear, aggressive intervention does not necessarily include military force.

Unjustified US occupation of Iraq inflames their sense of pride and threatens their culture and religion.

Iraqi culture has survived for millennia. Do you imagine this is due to fragility? Per religion, there is no greater threat to Islam than internal radicalism. To deny this is tantamont to accepting that Islam is violent and expansionist by its very theological nature. Is this your position?

It motivates the radical elements at the expense of the moderate elements.

This is exactly where you misunderstand/misinterpret radical Islam. Radical elements do not require external stimulus for motivation. Indeed, Salafist theology in and of itself provides the overarching impetus.

We see this hints of this in the election of the most anti-American radical in Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and other places in the ME where growing resentment towards what are perceived (with reason) as unjustified US military agression is producing greater support for radical groups throughout the region.

Make no mistake, Ahmadinijad was the 'ultra-conservative' candidate of the Iranian clerics. Hamas would be socially/militarily impotent without the huge financial and material assistence provided by Iran, Syria, and Wahabist Saudis. These same contributors also fund the activities of Hizb'allah in Lebanon.

Strikingly, we are witnessing more and more 'resentment' by Muslims against Islamist forces as time goes on. Sunni Arabs are battling al-Qa'ida-in-Iraq in Anbar province. Jordan has engaged radical elements since the hotel bombings in Amman. The Lebanese military is engaging al-Qa'ida forces in refugee camps. The US military has a strong presence in Kuwait and the Gulf States and this bi-lateral cooperation is steadily increasing.

We do not help the forces of moderation by fueling the forces of anti-American radicalism with arrogant and agressive posturing and actions.

One thing all Arab cultures share is a healthy respect for power and determination. Rather than exclusively fueling anti-American radicalism, American power and presence also emboldens the moderates and strengthens their resolve to resist radicalism. This apex is the critical lynchpin because ultimately, Muslims themselves must resolve their own fate.

 

[DivineComedy]

translate books into Arabic.

Want to promote democracy? Give em food for thought. Democracy is only as good as it's electorate is informed.

That sounds like a good idea to me, we need to make a reading list for them:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...lone19-islam-religion-peace-4.html#post548522

 

[Iriemon]

Since no arbitrary/artificial pullout date for a withdrawal from Iraq exists, a stay of any length is an indeterminate quantity. Perhaps you meant a 'continuous' occupation? A lengthy presence perhaps, but I highly doubt such a presence would demand the current force structure.

in·def·i·nite(n-df-nt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.


My use of "indefinite occupation" is a perfectly accurate description of the current state in Iraq, IMO.

Further aggression against Islamic nations? If that is where the enemy resides, then that is precisely where aggressive intervention is necessary. Just to be clear, aggressive intervention does not necessarily include military force.

Then we should make sure we are truly targeting the intended enemy. When we hit the wrong wrong target, as in Iraq, the end result is we make many new enemies, as we have in Iraq.

Iraqi culture has survived for millennia. Do you imagine this is due to fragility? Per religion, there is no greater threat to Islam than internal radicalism. To deny this is tantamont to accepting that Islam is violent and expansionist by its very theological nature. Is this your position?

I don't follow the logic. I don't deny that there is radicalism in Islam. I'm not sure that it is the "greatest" threat, but don't necessarily disagree either.

This is exactly where you misunderstand/misinterpret radical Islam. Radical elements do not require external stimulus for motivation. Indeed, Salafist theology in and of itself provides the overarching impetus.

This is exactly where you misunderstand/misinterpret radical Islam. Like any other conservative/militant movement it *thrives* on their being a perceived or real threat to Islam and conflict. They wanted "jihad" with the US because they knew that was the best way to expand their influence. They know that without an external threat their appeal is lessened. The radical cause has been greatly enhanced by unjustified US interventionism, This is not even a matter in dispute. The Iraq war has giving them a legitimate external threat they need to expand.

Republican politicians use the exact same tactic (though of course to a much lesser degree). They have struggled mightly to amplify the terror of terrorism because they know that is the best way to scare people into supporting their conservative militant agenda.

Make no mistake, Ahmadinijad was the 'ultra-conservative' candidate of the Iranian clerics. Hamas would be socially/militarily impotent without the huge financial and material assistence provided by Iran, Syria, and Wahabist Saudis. These same contributors also fund the activities of Hizb'allah in Lebanon.

Make no mistake, Ahmadinijad was not the only candidate on the ballot, and there were much less conservative candidates that the Iranian people could have elected.

Strikingly, we are witnessing more and more 'resentment' by Muslims against Islamist forces as time goes on. Sunni Arabs are battling al-Qa'ida-in-Iraq in Anbar province. Jordan has engaged radical elements since the hotel bombings in Amman. The Lebanese military is engaging al-Qa'ida forces in refugee camps. The US military has a strong presence in Kuwait and the Gulf States and this bi-lateral cooperation is steadily increasing.

Which should put to the rest the theory that they are all radicals by nature.

One thing all Arab cultures share is a healthy respect for power and determination. Rather than exclusively fueling anti-American radicalism, American power and presence also emboldens the moderates and strengthens their resolve to resist radicalism. This apex is the critical lynchpin because ultimately, Muslims themselves must resolve their own fate.

I have seen little since of advancement of moderation in the ME the last 6 years as a result of American agression, posturing, and pretextual military invasion. There are lots of signs that support for anti-American radicalism has greatly expanded.

If the goal is to get them to respect our power and detemination, there was no better way to squander that facade by engaging in a war of dubious legitimacy, in a guerilla/civil war environment where the enemy cannot be identified.

Makes you wonder if our leaders were out partying and chasing fillies instead of paying attention during the last guerilla/civil war we engaged.

 

[Tashah]

in·def·i·nite(n-df-nt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.

My use of "indefinite occupation" is a perfectly accurate description of the current state in Iraq, IMO.

Precisely what I said... indefinite does not equate to continuous.

Then we should make sure we are truly targeting the intended enemy. When we hit the wrong wrong target, as in Iraq, the end result is we make many new enemies, as we have in Iraq.

A few new enemies, but mostly Islamist enemies who gravitate to confrontation.

I don't follow the logic. I don't deny that there is radicalism in Islam. I'm not sure that it is the "greatest" threat, but don't necessarily disagree either.

Think about it further.

This is exactly where you misunderstand/misinterpret radical Islam. Like any other conservative/militant movement it *thrives* on their being a perceived or real threat to Islam and conflict. They wanted "jihad" with the US because they knew that was the best way to expand their influence. They know that without an external threat their appeal is lessened. The radical cause has been greatly enhanced by unjustified US interventionism, This is not even a matter in dispute. The Iraq war has giving them a legitimate external threat they need to expand.

Islamists do not need an exterior precursor. Their goal is nothing less than an Islamic caliphate from North Africa to China. Enhanced by unjustified US interventionism? Where have you been for the past two decades? Anyone versed in this historicity would certainly dispute your latent revisionism.

Republican politicians use the exact same tactic (though of course to a much lesser degree). They have struggled mightly to amplify the terror of terrorism because they know that is the best way to scare people into supporting their conservative militant agenda.

Next you'll tell us that the GOP engineered 9/11 on behalf of the New World Order. C'mon.

I have seen little since of advancement of moderation in the ME the last 6 years as a result of American agression, posturing, and pretextual military invasion. There are lots of signs that support for anti-American radicalism has greatly expanded.

There are even more signs that contemporary Muslims are increasingly turning against the radical Islamists. Take off your anti-American blinders for a while and really look around. Your incessant and vitriolic hatred for the current US government blinds you to any true assessment of the ongoing war between democratic principles and Islamic radicalism.