For once I am in agreement with DL, you cannot occupy a country when they use guerilla tactics, armies down through out history have found this out.

 

Its the same with terrorism. It always begs this question to me in relation to the US's war on terrorism. I'm all for it if you'll just point to one example where terrorism was stopped with military and police force alone?

 

Guerrilla wars have been defeated. The United States crushed the Philippine Insurrection. The British Army was usually able to defeat insurrections in various colonies. However, victory against a popular insurrection requires an Army to behave more brutally than electorates in Western democracies will currently tolerate. They also require a willingness to take casualties contemporary electorates shrink from. Successful counter insurgency requires this attitude: "we are here because we want to be here; if you cooperate we will not kill you." Electorates in affluent democracies have evolved morally to the point that they find an attitude like that unacceptable.

A possible exception to what I have just said may be the attitude of most Israelis to the Palestinians. However, here you have two nations with historical claims to the same land who are playing a zero sum game. The Vietnamese, had, and the Afghans and Iraqis have a greater interest in getting us out of their countries than we have in staying there.

Vietnam was unimportant to America's security and economy. A successful military effort there would have required greater sacrifices and more thorough cruelty than most Americans would have tolerated, and as well as an unacceptable risk of a greater war with the Soviet Union and Communist China.

 

Then 9/11 shouldn't bother you at all.. innocents being killed, it is a war isn't it?

 

The current "round" for the UK, or more accurately the English, in Ulster as more or less been resolved with peace negotiations, force from both sides failed, they would not break an indomitable English spirit and everything we tried up to and including internment failed, internment being the worst idea of all, those that were not terrorist going in were coming out and those that were had children or siblings that joined the "cause".

Much as you will find it repulsive you will have to sit across the table from the people who have killed US military in Afghan, the expression suck it up springs to mind, do it and get the issue solved 'cos you aint gonna beat the Taliban.

Like DL stated we in the west have not got the heart to subdue a population, and even if we did the manpower to maintain it would be astronomically expensive.

Edit. It is not just a political will we lack to go in and utterly subdue a country, soldiers are trained completely differently from years ago, we train to defend "our" land, to protect the weak and those incapable of taking up arms. In the main they are soldiers, good fucking soldiers, and not butchers.

 

I agree with the points special ops precision guided and possibly espionage.

But not the law enforcement, Clinton did that and we were attacked several times. There were problems with it also and that was the walls put up so no law enforcement could exchange intel. I do not believe that that would work anyway.

I agree that one leak would have stopped 9-11, that is where the good Muslims need to step up.


What needs to happen is the good Muslims (if there are any) need to work with us to get the bad. They say they are the religion of peace well let them show that by working with us.

As far as overestimating the communist, I would rather we over estimate then not be ready for more.

 

The people in the WTC buildings did nothing to the animals that flew the planes into them, The animals that are doing the killing are the ones that decided to make this whole thing happen.

The only thing they did not count on was GW not just accepting what they did and instead going after them.

Maybe if when if this crap started back in the 70's we went after them they would have thought twice about what they did on 9-11

 

TO ISLAM WITH LOVE!

 

After 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, "We did not attack the United States because the United States was weak. If we wanted to attack a weak country we would have attacked Iceland." He also said that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and lead to its fall, and that the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq would have the same effect on the United States. So far it seems to be happening.

 

You are sooooo worth talking about this stuff with. Its not that nobody had ever experienced terrorism before. Its not that we're totally alone in the world but also just as totally innocent. As if anyone ever really is.

And your soldiers are not butchers you say. Do they reflect YOU and what you believe in? Then they are doing their most important job. What good are soldiers and military might with no morals. Oh I know. The kind of might that makes right.

 

During the War in Vietnam Vo Nguyen Giap spoke to a French journalist. Giap explained that as more Americans were sent to South Vietnam more South Vietnamese joined the National Liberation Front.

"I see," the journalist said. "It is an upward spiral."

"No," Giap replied. "It is a downward spiral."

 

In a war of annihilation with the Islamic peoples we will kill most of them, but they will kill millions of us. The expense of such a war will destroy us as a nation. Contrary to right wing dogma, war and military spending are not good for the economy. :idea:

 

The negative aspects of a war against guerillas can be seen in the Vietnahm Conflict.

Prior to this period in US history your country was upbeat and in the main there were few demonstrations of dissent against the government at those that did occur were usually civil rights events. At the beginning of the US involvement when the troops going in were "Advisors" the mood was still upbeat, both civil and military. However by the time of the Tet offensive the mood had changed, students were demonstrating avidly against the authorities, not just in the US but even in England, troops coming home came not to garlands and cheers that they received after WW2 and Korea but to boos and hisses and calls of baby killer.

Troops on the ground were facing an elusive enemy that would not stand still for a fight, even the NVA rarely engaged in a stand up fight but rather with hit and move tactics. Troops strangely were fighting for a "body" count rather than for real estate, they could spend a week attacking a hill, occupy it then abandon it a week later.
When you start to compare body counts as a way of seeing who is winning, soldiers easily see how much those in command feel they are worth, when you take and abandon a position troops realise that the commanders do not think they are worth much.
The Vietnam war almost destroyed the US army, troops demoralised, the people who had any intelligence avoided service thus robbing it of it's natural source of Sergeants and Warrant Officers, the group of people who actually run the army, not the officers who read and sign papers all day, but the group that train, teach, cajole and push young lads into becoming good soldiers, when the group that are doing this are not the best quality then you get a poor quality result.
I worked a few times with US troops in Germany in the late seventies and early eighties, the troops not only had low moral but there was still a feeling of segregation within the various units couple with a ghetto mentality of each disparate ethnic grouping, not a good way to run an army.
From the early eighties they started to turn it around, I don't know whether it was the fact that Reagan was spending money on the army with new equipment replacing the old stuff rapidly or the fact of a good "win" in "Grenada", maybe a combination of both.
Right now though I can see a correlation of affects in Vietnam and Iraq/Afghan. Keep it up and watch your army suffer as it goes into another depressive period as the quality of recruits falls.

 

You are waging a war of population and control.
You will out breed us and take control of christian countries -politically by getting your own mob elected.
I am fed up of the muslim folk complaining that what we christians are doing upsets muslims - for example Christmas pagents is just one. Go back to your muslim countries and leave us in peace. If you fucked them up - then sort it out yourselves.
The jews are not much better - the only thing that keeps them going is the money the US pours into the country - to save the vote in the US and no other reason.

 

The Bible is more violent than the Quran

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/03/201032584118951469.html

 

I believe that Philip Jenkins should be considered to be less of a religious scholar and more of a person wanting to get attention. Because if he was a true religious scholar, he would have mentioned about how Islam is not based on only one holy book, but a multiple number of holy books and scriptures.

Furthermore, he should have also explained the different ways that each different denomination practices the religion of Islam, and only pays attention to some of the scriptures. The majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, compared to a smaller percentage who are Shi'a Muslims. Now the complications goes further when you break down the Shi'a Muslims into Twelvers and Seveners.

As I have stated before in this thread, Islam recognizes both Judaism and Christiniaty; yet neither Judaism or Christianity recognizes Islam. And when I say recognize a religion, I mean that they recognize important religious icons.

 

http://history.psu.edu/faculty/jenkinsPhilip.php

http://www.christianvisionproject.com/2007/03/companions_of_life.html

 

I am not doubting his credentials at all. All I am saying that a true religious scholar would have included the Torah, the Psalms, the Injil, the Hadith, and the Qur'an to defend Islam better. Because as I stated earlier, Islam is not based on only one holy book, like Christianity, it is based on multiple holy books. If he did not want to include all of those books, the least he had to use was the Qur'an and the Hadith. Because those two are the instrumental holy books of the Islamic faith.

 

An argument that can't be won

And this is hardly the place to have it. The shining light of justice hardly glows from either camp. For the west it's all about the almighty buck and oil. For the east and Islam it's about controlling anyone that does not spend the majority of their day with their forehead pressed against the ground and espousing the Koran. From what I've read so far, and its not the entire thread, the arguments on either side are totally pointless, because this is not a debate where there's the possibility that the other side can be swayed, it's a mud slinging match with nothing but hate and rancor dripping from every word. Please, why can't we just move on with either side burying the past, and swearing to build a better world for all, and let each person worship their God as they see fit, without fear of reprisals from fanatics. Nice dream, but unfortunately most of the world is just too immature to grasp a concept as simple as this one.

 

Dumb fuck

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/03/201032584118951469.html