Feb 20 2007
Realism On The War On Terror
A must read on the real status of the war on terrorism, if for nothing else than to take a break from the know-nothing, breathless doomsayers in the liberal media (who are never right about anything – including UFOs). A sneak peak:
Part of the problem is that we attribute preternatural qualities to the terrorists while establishing standards for our own success that are unattainable. For example, the notion that anything at all is going according to al Qaeda’s plan is nonsense. Bin Laden laid out the strategic goals of the organization in his 1996 Declaration of War. What would winning look like in their framework? Osama bin Laden the most popular leader in the Muslim world, revered by all, leading an increasingly united nation of true believers. Attacks on U.S. and Coalition military installations and warships throughout the region, sometimes resulting in major losses, leading to a comprehensive retreat from the Middle East. Regimes in the region suffering internal revolts, riots, a breakdown of the internal security apparatus, mutinies among their troops, assassinations of key leaders, and eventually armies of mujahedeen seizing control of the capitals and pledging allegiance to bin Laden’s growing empire. A united Palestinian movement, religious in orientation and loyal to the al Qaeda program, waging a war to the death on an increasingly beleaguered and strategically isolated Israel. Incessant, occasionally dramatic attacks in the West and especially in the United States, showing the puissance of the movement and its ability to inflict damage on the U.S. at times and places of their choosing.
Strangely, you talk to a die hard liberal and this is exactly what they see! It seems the conservative movement came just in time. Otherwise Bin Laden would be the ruler of the entire ME has liberals made their way to his throne to bow down and beg his indulgence. Thankfully, things are not actually going that way at all for the Islamo Fascists (or the liberals).
Leaked CIA reports among others show whatever successes the jihad has accrued have been in significant part aided by Bush’s
invasion of Iraq. And our continued occupation on decided balance
increases its ranks worldwide.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that our presence in Iraq helps Al Qaeda, what about our presence in Afghanistan? Should we leave there, too, and return to the status quo ante 2001?
Lasso
What do you suggest.
For example should we shut down the police in LA since gangs exist there.
Even Marion Barrie in DC is coming around to the fact that gun control laws which are the most strict in the nation have been almost a welcome mat for the criminals.
Merlinthemagici…ooops sophistry isn’t magic.
Did anyone ever say LA gangs exist or grow because Los Angeles has a police force which intervened in their territory?
What do Americangun control laws, which I oppose far more than Strata, supporting Vermont’s freedom in this regard, have to do with
intervention overseas? Exactly nothing.
DennisA
If you haven’t read my antidote to terror before, it consists
of American coming home, strengthening defenses, declaring
a moratorium on immigration, rounding up illegals, developing
our own energy sources while purchasing for the time being
oil at market prices, cutting off foreign aid to Israel and Egypt,
after forcing the vacation of the West Bank and Samaria as we
forced Saddam’s vacation of Kuwait, and helping negotiate
a Palestinian state inclusive of the right of return. When that
state is effectualized we should cancel all Mideast alliances
and declare ourselves friend to all, ally of none.
Lassoing, why did John Quncy Adams and Thomas Jefferson help Spain fight against the Barbary Islamic pirates?
Why did we enter WWII?
Why did we side with Stalin to fight against Hitler?
I don’t believe that our invasion of Iraq would have any effect in strengthening AQ and other terrorists. Had we not attacked Iraq, AQ and other terrorists would still get stronger and more devastating. The longer we force them to fight in their own lands, the less likely they would attack our own country and assets. But they will continue to find ways to attack us. The Democrats’ actions will unfortunately will weaken us, rather than strengthening us.
The elites never seem to have been concerne with the madrassas which have been preaching hatred for the “infidels”- yes, infidels, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It is about religion. This is a religious was as far as the sexually frustrated Islamofascists are concerned. Either you believe what they believe or you are to be killed. Simple as that.
And really, where have all the so-called bleeding heart liberals been when ELEVEN MILLION Iraqi’s voted …for democracy to have a chance…and all the hussein victims that were put in shredders HEAD FIRST so they could feel the pain more…and all the raped women and children who had to witness the deaths of their fathers and mothers….or the mass graves…
Many liberals have been converted because they could not believe the NON-response that was given to the ELEVEN MILLION Iraqi’s …NOT YOUR FATHER’S LIBERALS ANYMORE.
Lurker
I ask the same questions about every subject you mention except
the Barbary Pirates, whose activity was neither national nor
religiously motivated.
Ivehadit
So you objected to the tacit US/Iraq alliance against Iran during their war?
As far as the election, check the polls of Iraqis. They lost since lost
faith in the government they “elected” when it failed to restore peace
within a few months after the “election.” (Most voted for ethnic/religious militia slates and were ignorant of the individual
candidates, that is to say, never heard of them.) At any rate your
dear leader already voided the election when he said to Syria in Lebanon, “get out so they can have a free election; an election cannot be free when a country is occupied.”
Lasso,
Curious that you should second guess our entry into WWII in opposition to Hitler. And ,today, you are comfortable defending Islamic terrorists. To top it off, you advocate policies that would end the state of Israel. Am I the only one that sees a pattern here?
Those pesky nonexistent Iraq WMD surface again
Barbary pirates were neither religious nor national?
Read the following:
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
Snopes:
True
Barbary Pirates were radical Muslims. While Snopes questioned that these were radical Islam Muslims, there are other documentation that prove that they are indeed radical Muslims.
America’s Earliest Terrorists
Exactly what the book of Qur’an says along with the abrogation of peaceful verses.
AJStrata, looks like my posts are still in your spam bucket.
True
While Snopes is not convinced that these Barbary Pirates were religious nor nationalists, they are considered “Radicals” according to the Book of Qur’an.
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
America’s Earliest Terrorists, subtitle: Lessons from America’s first war against Islamic terror.
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.â€
Continue reading.
Exactly what the book of Qur’an says along with abrogation of peaceful verses.
And another link:
What Thomas Jefferson learned
from the Muslim book of jihad
Interesting that this post addressed the appeasement of these Barbary Pirates for 15 years before Thomas Jefferson became a US President, then he declared war against them….and WON!
This post addressed the costs of appeasement. This reminded me of the costs of enforcing the “No-Fly Zones” against Saddam turned out to be higher than going to war against Iraq.
It took ten years for Thomas Jefferson to win against the Muslim traders and slavers.
“Curious that you should second guess our entry into WWII in opposition to Hitler.”
Particularly since we weren’t given a choice. Japan attacked us, and the psychopath Hitler, being a good ally of Japan, declared war on us.
Michael Oren and his new book, “Power, Faith, and Fantasy”, a sweeping history of America’s involvement in the Middle East from 1776 to the present.
“MJT: So tell us, Michael, why does America’s involvement in the Middle East 200 years ago matter today? What does it have to do with September 11 and Iraq?
Oren: Well it matters, Michael, because many of the same issues that Americans are facing today in the Middle East were confronted by America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington. For example, they had to confront the issue of state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. They had to face a threat to the United States, and decide whether to generate military power and then project that power thousands of miles from the United States. They had to decide whether to involve the United States in an open-ended and rather expensive bloody war in the Middle East. This was, of course, the Barbary War, America’s first overseas military engagement and America’s longest overseas military engagement. It lasted from 1783 to 1815. During the course of this engagement, as my book shows, the United States was confronting a jihadist state-sponsored terrorist network that was taking Americans hostage in the Middle East. It’s very similar to what is going on today.”
Lasso
Thank you for making my point.
No the gangs didn’t grow because the police were there, they have other reasons that are driving it. Same goes for our presence in the mid east. If we were not there they would still be growing, only with an easier path. It was what was going on before we got there.
As to my second point on gun control, it is applicable. It slides right into the position of over restrictive rules of engagement.
You and your ilk with your euro-wheenie outlook can blather on all you wish. But volume of talk does not make truth.
Disarming of guns in England showed an increase in crime, btw.
Lasso
In case you have not gotten the clue and figured it out and I left you two IED’s of logic of the simplest kind with trip wires in the road for you.
I thought you would trigger one or the other but you gobbled down both.
That makes it two for two.
How could you be so simplistically caught if you are by your own image so amazingly brilliant?
Have you heard of the Nazi Werewolves? They were the “insurgents” of post WWII and fought for ten years to gain the power of NAZI’s back.
Did you know why two tall steep poles had to be welded to the front corners of our jeeps during those years?
The NAZI Werewolves would run a wire across the road to decapitate our troops heads. The poles were installed to destroy those wires.