Damn Shame This .... Time to Get Out ..?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael, not really for me to say, my butt's not on the line but my feeling is that you deny the enemy thatwhich he most desires at all costs. If you flinch you provide the enemy with enouragement
 
just a friendly reminder.....

no-politics.gif
 
T'is a great pity such things are happening more often, although gazing an eye of realism/pragmatism; is something truely like this with 'recent' previous anti-what-ever-religious events taken into account, not wholey unexpected in a bad case senario... it could be worse in a more widespread case - only a needs a few nutters on any side ramp it up past that line we all draw infront of our feet - if viewed form an alternate position of opinion.

As another geeky engineery type (as a time served, but only college qualified), I second the previous two posts.
 
Last edited:
The trip to Mars is indeed cool but how did we get from Taliban attacks to a Mars trip? Did I miss some intermediary chapters?
 
Did I miss some intermediary chapters?

No - I don't think so. You said "... you deny the enemy that which he most desires at all costs. If you flinch you provide the enemy with encouragement"

To reply to that credo in any form is political and - we know - that is verboten.

But, I would suggest that if you're engaged with a cunning, irrational foe who seeks martyrdom, it might be smart to deny that enemy what he most desires. Too often these "missions" suffer from fixation and creep. America has enough important stuff (eg Mars and the Universe) to keep her usefully occupied without playing the Taliban's game. There was a brief window after 9-11 when the momentum in Afghanistan was with the USA - that moment came and went - and the situation in the Middle East is now in complete turmoil -- US policy has failed to make the region more secure. This is not a failure of the USA nor is it a loss of capability -- but it is an indication that perhaps the tried and true "... deny the enemy that which he most desires at all costs. If you flinch you provide the enemy with encouragement..." isn't going to work in this particular conflict. This eruption of militant Islam cannot be defeated on a battleground like Afghanistan. Sadly, the only battleground that the USA can defeat this kind of extremism is right at home in the USA. The fact there hasn't been another 9-11 speaks to the effectiveness of Homeland Security measures to some appreciable degree. But as for trying to democratize the world - it isn't going to work in the Middle East -- until these people come to their senses, avoid contact - withdraw from contact abroad -- butt out. And crush terrorism at home wherever and whenever. America does not need the Middle East or its oil. And, pleasing (placating) your sworn enemies does not convert them to friends

MM
 
Last edited:
Michael, I do see and agree with some of your points but I do not think that the US can ignore groups like the Taliban and focus on the stars, "where no man has gone before" I felt in Vietnam that programs like "hearts and minds" was the way to go and it was showing real promise, IMHO. Battles/wars are easy, nothing stands against the US armed forces for long. BUT after the battle, we're not real good at winning the peace. The army is not a good police force. The hearts and minds of the common people were with us but we provided them with no lasting security. Everyone knew that sooner or later the US was going to take its bat and ball and go home and the VC/NVA would still be there to exact vengence. America/democracy/republics did not spring into being in 1776 it grew from centuries of English Common Law. No such backround exists in the mid-east. SO:
First - security from the wolves then we see what can grow in the calm
 
"... security from the wolves then we see what can grow in the calm.."

The problem isn't "the wolves" ... they're healthy, disciplined creatures and perform a useful role in the environment (sheep farmers will naturally disagree :)). The problem is with the rabid dogs in our midst. There's no cure for rabies. It is highly contagious and it makes those afflicted irrational and fearless ....

Erich .... I agree.

MM
 
Struggled with this one,.. O.k., here goes...
True believers will get you killed. Just that simple. I got no truck with folks whose belief system tells them to be nice, but that isn't what is being dealt with here. The Taliban has a 5th century attitude towards everything and access to 21st century weapons, a very bad combination. As long as they think their "god" will reward them with pleasures that they are denied here on earth as a reward for killing anyone that does not believe, well, we got problems. There is no middle ground with these people, it is all or nothing, and no amount of diplomacy will change that. They are commanded to kill, and kill they will. Maybe if the guys at the top would strap on the bombs and go themselves it might eventually stop, but they exhort the young instead. The indoctrination starts from birth and never lets up. "allah's" will dictates, and they will obey.
Sad, really.
Rabies is a good analogy, unfortunately.
 
"... There is no middle ground with these people, it is all or nothing, and no amount of diplomacy will change that. "

This an an enemy, a threat, like none other that western society has faced in over 300 years. The last time Islam was broadly expansionist, it was checked, IIRC, at the gates of Vienna: Battle of Vienna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

What we are facing is test of strength and dominance between Shia and Sunni schools of Islamic faith -- with Western Civilization and values being used by both sides as the proving ground or arena in which to demonstrate their superiority - to believers within Islam.

As Camp Hood and other incidents have demonstrated, the enemy can be in our midst day in and day out - not arousing suspicion until it is too late. Communism in the early stages of the Cold War was a relatively defensible enemy compared to a contest with the world's largest religious "faith".

Meatloaf you are right - modern weapons and communications in the hands of 5th Century "believers" is very, very frightening. In Canada, in the UK, in France and the USA, politicians and academics of all stripes are urging accommodation and tolerance. That will not work. Pleasing your sworn enemies only puts Western societies at risk.

Vienna was a "formal" and decisive military encounter - so was Tours almost 800 years before it. Today - the enemy is cloaked amongst the people.

MM
 
The idea that martyrs receive a reward in heaven, the "72 virgins", is totally not true. It comes not from the Koran but from the Hadith a collection "Features of Heaven" by Imam at-Tirmidhi from Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard Muhammad saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri. Imam at-Tirmidhi is considered to be a very minor authority. The term HOURI can refer to virgins, or wives, or even white rasins.
More authentic Hadiths state:
Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 445: Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him."
Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 73: Narrated Thabit bin Ad-Dahhak: "And if somebody commits suicide with anything in this world, he will be tortured with that very thing on the Day of Resurrection.
From the Qur'an itself: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancour and injustice,- soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. Qur'an 4:29 – 4:30
Fundamentalist Imams take and pick the parts they like, much as Christians who pick out phrases like "Eye for an eye" or one of my favs "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
 
To deploy a coventional force with conventional tactics (no matter the firepower of that force) against a non conventional enemy is always dangerous and complicated. If it was for me I would conduct the campaign in Afghanistan with key point massive bombing and selective hits (selective assasinations if you like). No more patrolling an area where you can loss soldiers en every corner and anyone with a beard could shoot them up badly.
 
air attacks will never replace "boots on the ground" especially in a guerilla war. The Phoenix program in Vietnam had some positive results but the danger exists that it can get co-opted into vengence/anti-rival squads. The religeous issues in the mid-east make things hundreds of times worse. Security is still primary but will never be 100%. Again because, IMHO, many people in authority keep a foot in both camps as insurance against the day the US decides it does not want to play any more and walks away. Every POW camp we ever hit had been warned, sometimes days in advance, that we were coming.
Don't have an answer but I do know that weakness will be exploited. Getting on the tiger's back is easy compared to trying to stay on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Heart Aerospace Rolls Out 4 Engine 30 Seat Electric Airliner
Replies
8
Views
623
MIflyer
M
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
662
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
fubar57
Bombardier to Supply Jet to U.S. Army
Replies
1
Views
662
Denniss
D
M
First Operational F-15EX Rolls Out
Replies
0
Views
639
MIflyer
M
N
How come the Mirage-2000 failed to penetrate Western markets?
Replies
13
Views
975
Frog
F
Back