The next attack (On Topic)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
More than 90% of the world's
wars are being fought in Islamic countries. That says a lot about Islam.

Sure, CJ, in contrast with the blissful harmony in which Christian nations
have lived together for the past two millennia, or even the past century.

Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that
should
be explored.

While you're planning your Final Solution, CJ, keep in mind that most of the
rest of the world, including much of the US, will side against you. So
you'll have to exterminate far more of us than just the Muslim portion of
the world's population. But perhaps that prospect appeals to you.

--Gary

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot.

Wrong. Islam means submission and it is "the" fundamental principle in
Islam that the whole world shall submit or die. Islam is evil.
Everything the terrorists do is supported by basic, fundamental Islamic
beliefs.

This situation is only going to be
resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that there
are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
fundamentalism as the only path.

Wahabism (sp) is the catalyst and it must be destroyed.

These are Islamic societies and nothing
short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change that.

No. Simply taking the oil fields and stopping the flow of money would do
it. I can think of a lot of options short of nukes.

Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity. Unless we
are prepared to kill millions to eliminate thousands of terrorists we will
not solve this problem until the Islamic societies become our allies in the
struggle. Your kind of thinking, and just about everything our government
is doing, works directly against this.

Again you have a basic fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. Anyone
not a muslim is an infidel, barely worthy of enslavement. I challenge
you to prove me wrong scripturally, from the words of Mohammed,
especially his later words which are more important.


The distortions of culture, society, and government in the mideast that lead
to this are largely of our (the West's) doing. The very borders of the
nations were established by Britain and other powers of the time without
regard to ethnic borders that would create stable nations. We threw the
economies and cultures completely out of whack with oil money and tolerated
and supported brutal dictatorships that would keep the oil flowing.

So what do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia? or any of the
Emirates? Syria? Iran? This terrorism that we are facing is State
supported and financed. We must make the states that support and
finance terror decide that it isn't in their best interest to do so.
One success that we have had seem to be Libya, and Pakistan seems to be
headed in the right direction. Even Saudi Arabia seems to be rethinking
supporting Terrorists. About the only nations overtly fighting with us
is Syria, Iran and North Korea.

snip

Israel has proved that terrorism can not be eliminated by force even within
a small geographic area where some of the toughest people in the world have
enormous control and decades of understanding the situation on the ground
and the culture they are dealing with. What chance do we have over a huge
area at the end of a long logistical trail when the Pentagon can't even find
enough translators?

Curiously since Isreal has started taking out the Hamas leaders there
hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in quite a while, since
Janruary I think. If Israel took out the palistinian leadership all the
attacks would probably stop, at least until they got new leaders and
eventually new leaders might think twice about killing Jews if they knew
that they were going to die.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Saddam is no longer
giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. $25,000 is a fortune
to people living in real poverty, not fake American poverty.

This is now an intractable and long term problem that is going to have to be
managed. The solution will take decades and patience. Thinking of
terrorism as something that has to be eliminated before the next election or
we'll need a new president will make true solutions impossible to pursue or
implement. Nothing constructive will happen until Islamic societies start
to function properly in the modern world, leadership in them is supported by
the population at large, and they see themselves as allies with us in the
struggle against terror. Everything being done now is probably being
cheered by Bin Laden.

Yeah, I am sure that Osama loves to scurry from cave to cave, if he is
even alive and Saddam must like prison life.

Yeah Osama must love the fact that the money supply and state support is
drying up. That is why all after all his threats and promises nothing
has happened here. Nothing speaks more eloquently about Osama's
abilities to strike at us as silence.

It's much like trying to glide to a landing spot after an engine out. Pull
back on the yoke and you will land shorter or even stall and crash. Right
now, all the passengers are screaming, "Pull up, pull up!" and big burly
fellows are struggling to the front to try and grab the yoke to pull it back
further. Kerry isn't going to do any better unless he can become the kind
of leader who can calm the passengers and regain control. I don't have a
lot of confidence that he can do that but I'd rather not have a pilot in
this situation who clearly thinks that how hard he pulls back on the yoke is
the test of his leadership.


So you want a pilot to leave the controls and go back into the passenger
compartment to soothe them and let the plane crash out of control?

Kerry wants to follow the French and let America be overrun by muslims
and take bribes from the Arabs.

LG

In article ,
"BillC85" wrote:

To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
war.

Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
there for the next 10,000 years.

Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
about that.

We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest mistake
of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
not work this time.

We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They all
die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.

Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
you know it.

No, sorry, I don't -- it's absolutely not "the only way".

We do have to fight "them" (the bad guys), and do it resolutely,
no question about it.

But we also have to educate and persuade and empower the good guys --
the decent people -- who are a majority in Islamic lands every bit as
much as in Christian or whatever lands.

Failing to do that -- focusing only on "no quarter, no mercy",
abandoning our own Western values -- will in fact accomplish exactly the
opposite, and drive the good guys in the Islamic world the other way.

Christianity at one time, some centuries ago, was nearly as bad as
fundamentalist Islam is today (and so are some of our Christian and
Jewish zealots today). The Western world has progressed a long way
beyond that; Islam and the Arab world can also.

No flames, Bill. You are absolutely dead on. They go away .. or we go away.
I
choose them.



"BillC85" wrote in message
...

Very good points all.

To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
war.

Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
there for the next 10,000 years.

Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
about that.

This war is a test of will. Theirs against ours. So far we're running it
like a 5th Avenue PR campaign and they're running it like it should be
run.

We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest
mistake
of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
not work this time.

We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They
all
die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.

Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
you know it.

BillC

There are a whole bunch of faulty assumptions here, beginning with the idea
that we lost the war in Vietnam. At worst, it was a push, but we did achieve
the primary goal of halting the spread of communism in Asia. Ultimately,
Vietnam demonstrated the abject failure of communism and should be seen as
one of the events that led to the collapse of communism in Russia and
Europe.

The invasion of Iraq has accomplished similar geo-political goals. The
Findlandization of such countries as Iran and Libya has been evident. The
thing we must do is stop allowing terrorists to control our media. The
beheading of a few hostages has absolutely no military consequence, for
example, but the tremendous publicity gained by these actions has inspired
thousands of others.

These people want only one thing: the complete destruction of all infidels.
The thing that people are going to have to understand is that it is possible
to lose this war and they should understand the consequences. Terrorists now
control Spain. Spain will do whatever the terrorists want; all they have to
do is make a few threats or blow up a train. We are in danger of losing the
Philippines.

If we allow the terrorists to gain control of this country then we are
doomed. You are right when you say the terrorists are taking a long view.
Their ultimate goal is to create fundamentalist Islamic states in every
country in the world. But refusing to fight back, refusing to destroy them
wherever they are found, refusing to use every weapon and measure at our
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it. They must understand that
the media will no longer do their dirty work for them. Their shrines and
holy places can no longer remain inviolable. Their religious leaders can no
longer be allowed to maintain private armies. Countries that allow the
transit of fighters should expect a nuclear response. Those who raise money
for terrorist organizations and allow their mosques to be used as forums for
recruiting terrorists should die and their mosques should be leveled, no
matter where in the world those mosques are. Moslems in the United States
should understand that the consequences of shielding terrorists in their
midst and apologizing for them will result in their extermination. They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
democratic protections.

It is time to take this threat seriously and stop using it as a political
football or as an arena for judicial grandstanding. So far I have seen
absolutely no sign that either party is willing to do that.

Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
question.


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
democratic protections.


Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
it or not, that's where we stand.


Greg

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

Actually, I believe it's more accurate to portray it as a war between modern
society and RELIGIOUS fundamentalism -- in all forms.

Islam just happens to be the flavor of choice for these nutcases. It could
just as easily have been Christians, as Tim McVeigh demonstrated.

Sadly, the Christian Right in the U.S. is mostly blind to this knowledge.
This fact only enflames the issue, and leads to the erroneous "Christian vs.
Muslim" aspect of the war.

This in no way means that I agree with Roger's approach, however. Although
he makes many good points, he offers no alternatives to fighting other than
"just getting along" with these poor, down-trodden people.

I see no way for this to happen when the poor, down-trodden people are
beheading our hostages on TV, and forcing their women to be mute, and to
wear shrouds in public.

As for Israel not proving that they can eliminate terrorism, I respectfully
disagree. This war has only just begun, and Israel has proven that a small
group of dedicated people can (a) construct a true democracy in the midst of
squalor and terror, and (b) can stand up to almost daily attacks without
breaking.

Although I don't agree with everything Israel has done, or stands for, to
say that they are not an inspiration in our fight against terror would be
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

This in no way means that I agree with Roger's approach, however.
Although
he makes many good points, he offers no alternatives to fighting other
than
"just getting along" with these poor, down-trodden people.



Good Lawd Jay, I'm not advocating just getting along. I actually advocate
far, far, more action, military as well as covert. It has to be undertaken
intelligently and with the understanding that it is not the solution itself
but only something that allows you the maneuvering room and freedom to bring
the real solutions to bear.

This is an extension of the kind of lessons that have been learned in recent
decades about the limits of air power. For a while, we thought that we could
"bomb them into the stone age" and win wars from 25,000 feet without
endangering any of our guys. We learned the hard way that air power is just
a tool to get boots on the ground and, until there are GI footprints in the
dust, we haven't won anything.

Military action as a whole, including GI boots on the ground, is just a tool
for getting a lot of other kinds of feet on the ground and doing a lot of
other things. Military power is like surgery, it's counterproductive in the
short term if the goal is health. Sometimes though, it's your only option to
bring more productive forces to bear.

The scale of force, military, developmental, economic, and moral that is
required to win this struggle is so great that even a nation like ours can't
do it alone unless we are willing to go on a WWII like footing of sacrifice.
(No more flying) Even that probably wouldn't be enough. Our military is
already showing the strain and we are borrowing against the future. Iraq
should have been flooded with troops that gradually withdrew leaving behind
an infrastructure that works. We talked the talk but the scale of what we
did was pathetic.

If we had been on military stand down with a 50,000 man army when this
happened, everyone would have understood that we had to build the army and
resources first. Simple head counting and economics made what needed to be
done in Iraq an effort that could only be undertaken by a large and willing
group of nations. The political dynamics absolutely required this as well.

I'm not saying that we've done too much but that we've done far too little.

If Bush had gone in with only a 50,000 army to do this, everyone would have
understood that he was a fool. By buying into the lone cowboy image of the
US, we're blinded to the fact that the effort was equally inadequate and
doomed.

Another point to ponder. Iraq could have waited. It's clear now from what we
are learning about the intelligence that our leaders knew damn well(or were
incompetent if they didn't) that it could have waited. Think what the money
and manpower expended in Iraq could have done for our security if spread
around the world and our borders, especially in the inspection of things
like inbound containers.

It's easy to look tough. It's hard to be tough, smart, and patient at the
same time. We've looked tough but we've actually only undertaken the easy
things. We haven't been the least bit smart and we are up against people
orders of magnitude more patient than we are.

Say, rent the movie about Mohammed Ali and pay attention to the fight at the
end against George Foreman. That's a good example of what toughness
sometimes is.

--
Roger Long

I'm not saying that we've done too much but that we've done far too
little.

I'm still waiting for you to say what you advocate doing now instead of what
we're currently doing.

And I don't want to hear what you think we should have done -- you've stated
that rather eloquently. (And I agree with much of what you say, to a
point.)

This "What should we do now?" question is the one no one seems to ask Kerry,
and it's disturbing. All I ever hear from his camp is how "screwed up" we
are in Iraq -- but I never hear any other positive ideas from him.

What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror right
now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
question.


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of
continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?


No. It is a war for survival. The only thing these people want is for you to
die. The only way to keep them from killing you, your wife, your children,
and burning your house down so that 'infidels' will not live in it is to
kill them first.

They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and
expect
democratic protections.


Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
it or not, that's where we stand.

It has never been true that the right to advocate violent overthrow of the
government has been protected. Even if it is, these people have forfeited
that right. The Constitution was meant to protect reasonable and rational
discourse. These people cannot be negotiated with. They cannot be reasoned
with. They cannot be bargained with. They have no intention of upholding any
sort of Constitution. If you don't grow your beard just so they want to be
able to drag you out into the street and execute you in front of your family
and neighbors.

We lose the Constitution completely if these guys win. America in time of
war has always suspended certain Constitutional rights. There were far more
restrictions on freedom during WW II than there are now, and after the war
those freedoms were returned. In fact, Americans had more and greater
freedoms after the war than before.

It is time to stop playing games with semantics. We have got to exterminate
these people before they do the same to us.