Skip to main content

The Muslim terrorists always fight a cowardly war by killing innocent women and children. A person would think that the world leaders would condemn such cowardly acts, but instead the world leaders tend to side with the terrorist who hide their arms and ammunition around women and children. As I have said before we are fighting a spiritual war. Good against evil and right now evil is winning. The US and Israel are the only two countries that are truly fighting terrorism and its a battle that neither one of us will ever win, but we must keep up the fight or all is lost. If Muslims take control they will kill every Christian they can, there past history is our only warning sign. America you need to wake up before its too late.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
The US and Israel are the only two countries that are truly fighting terrorism and its a battle that neither one of us will ever win, but we must keep up the fight or all is lost.


Uhm... I tried parsing that in different ways, but I can only glean one possible line of (for lack of a better term) reasoning. Let me see if I've gotten your meaning correctly:

1. The US and Israel are the only two countries that are truly fighting terrorism.

2. It (the fight against terrorism) is a battle that neither one of us (the US and/or Israel) will ever win.

3. We must keep up the fight or all is lost.


Point one is debatable, but for the purpose of leaving unnecessary distractions out of the way for the moment, let's assume that is correct. Israel and the US are the only two good guys. Facing such overwhelming odds, apparently, your statement in point two seems to indicate the the terrorists are going to overcome our two valiant but overmatched nations. We are going to LOSE the war on terrorism. Point three? We must keep fighting or all is lost.

Wait, didn't you already say we're going to lose? Isn't saying that "it's a battle neither one of us will ever win" pretty much mean the same thing as "all is lost"?

So, in this line of reasoning, you're saying that even though we're most assuredly going to lose, we have to fight to keep from losing?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of these guns-are-bad hippies, and I don't particularly care for people who want to kill me and everybody like me because I don't believe the same thing they do. (Of course that could apply to religions, political affiliations, and many other things - extremists are scary no matter what their particular fetish is.) I'm just mystified by the "all is lost, but we have to keep fighting to keep all from being lost" argument.
In wars based on religion nobody wins. It doesn't mean they won't be fought. Within every religion there is a megalomaniac that uses the religion to control people which means power. Every once in a while one of those leaders die, but in most cases thousands of innocents die first.

I, too, don't believe in standing aside and letting any country run over us. But the facts are the facts. There are plenty of good people in every religious and non-religious group. Its unfortunate that the bad apples smell the strongest.
How can you win when the terrorist blow up a car filled with a small nuclear bomb and kill one million New Yorkers? Or are they smarter than we think and are going to destroy us financially first? Or perhaps they sit back and we destroy ourselves by printing more money! The terrorist have plenty of options we only have a few and let’s hope Obama gets at least a few right. Terrorism has to be nipped in the bud is there anyone willing to do the nipping?
quote:
Originally posted by NYTrooper:
quote:
So, in this line of reasoning, you're saying that even though we're most assuredly going to lose, we have to fight to keep from losing?




We have to fight to 'survive'. And yes...we will lose along the way.


Not if we would just sit down with our enemies and figure out what we have done to make them hate us so. Wink
No seriously,we could win the war on terror if we weren't fighting two enemies at once:terrorist and political correctness.Due to todays current PC atmosphere,our great military is not allowed to fight to win.
This particular was is what we refer to as "assymmetric"...that means, "uneven". An assymmetric war CAN be won, but that does not mean that when the war is "won" peace will break out spontaneously all across the world. It means there would be no organization that would continue to fight.

In an assymmetric war, terrorists attack the weakest points. But then, we in the military try to make any war we fight assymmetric, as well. However, we don't go out of our way to attack schools, hospitals, office buildings. Our targeting is based on proportionality; the ratio between military utility and the potential for collateral damage. The general result of that is, for example, not bombing a mosque even though it is also an arms storage facility.

Lenin said that the purpose of terrorism was to terrorize. It has always been to force the government to take steps to protect the populace that the populace would chafe at. One of the tools we use in fighting this war is intercepting emails. We get a lot of useful intelligence from it, but civil liberties groups scream and froth at the mouth over this invasion of privacy. So, by actually fighting this war, we lose battles.

Wars are won in the will. When we study targeting, we look for "centers of gravity". These are the areas that attacking brings tremendous pressure to bear on the enemy. In WW2, it was dams, electrical generation stations, and ball bearing plants. Destroy a ball-bearing plant and industrial production shuts down. Our fight against an "ideology" of radical islam has significantly different centers of gravity. We're spending a lot of time killing their leadership and cadre, and that requires intelligence. I doubt we'll ever get to the point where the jihadis will realize that fighting Americans is a one-way trip to Paradise. I believe that my definition of "WINNING" is the war in Iraq doesn't get worse.

In a classic guerilla war, hostilities can be maintained almost indefinitely as long as the insurgents have a sanctuary and an external source of support. The progression of guerilla war goes toward capturing enough land to where they can claim to establish a "legitimate" government. Textbook strategy is to conduct military operations to deny them that sanctuary. We've been very successful in Iraq in accomplishing that. So we're winning, but it's doubtful there will ever be anything analogous to V-J day in Iraq.

All in all, our strategy has been sound. We've selected a battlefield far away from America to conduct the inevitable war against radical islam. We've adapted our doctrine to the realities of the combat situation, and we're killing bad guys in job lots. While a traditional "victory", meaning a complete cessation of hostilities, may never be a reality, the only way we can lose is to quit.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×