Posted on 07/23/2005 8:12:35 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
It seems to me that we are in a war with Muslim terrorists, supported by a large percentage of Muslims, but to date we have been fighting it in a defensive and reactive way.
How about some ideas on how to go on the offensive, and be proactive.
What do we need to do, what can we do to make the enemy pay a price for their aggression?
How can we defeat it militarily, politically, psychologically, ideologically, economically?
I wonder how long it will be until the first idiot arrives to suggest that we nuke Mecaa.
Invade one or two countries, arrest suspected terrorists in our country, special ops in others, cut funding, investigate front groups... We might try those.
No government is perfect but I think we've done pretty damned good in this war. If I went back to September 12, 2001 and told you that by July of 2005 we'd have taken out the Taliban and have the beginnings of representative government in Afghanistan, which we took out in a matter of months, did the same in Iraq, had Saddam in jail with his sons dead, and hadn't had another attack on the US homeland, you'd tell me to quit dreaming.
I know it's fashionable to be hypercritical and pessimistic, but I don't agree, I think our military and government are doing a damned good job.
Tick tock...
I wonder if assuming that Islaam is the enemy, and that the enemy is fighting to protect and promote Islaam, why would Islaamic things be off limits?
If some branch of Christianity in NE India, for example, became terrorists against muslims and hindus, would that justify the nuking of the Vatican?
Granted all these things are good, but Bin Ladin et al don't really care about Iraq or Ahghanistan, or the Patriot Act.
I'm thinking more about what will make the average Islamic fanatic's eyes water, causing pain to what matters most to them.
If the Bible advocated killing or subjugating all non-adherents it would be just as bad, but it doesn't does it?
If some branch of Christianity in NE India, for example, became terrorists against muslims and hindus, would that justify the nuking of the Vatican?
One would have to put themselves in the mind of muslims
and I don't doubt that the answer would be yes, the only
question would be how many years till the radiation wore
off and they could build a mosque on the rubble.
They don't? How do you know? And the idea isn't about them "caring" (?). It's about doing something. We have. Are you seriously saying you know that UBL was pleased to be run out of Afghanistan? That he doesn't mind that we're drying up the sources of funding for terror? UBL hated the US being in the Middle East, and now we're there in greater numbers than before. And yes, I think he does care about The Patriot Act if it prevents him from striking again--don't you?
I'm thinking more about what will make the average Islamic fanatic's eyes water, causing pain to what matters most to them.
Killing them is better than "making their eyes water." We've been doing that. The "average Islamic fanatic" is being killed or is killing himself or is killing other Muslims; what do you think we can do to make his eyes water?
The Brits are off to a good start. If the Muslims don't step up and their lives start to suck, they have no one to blame but themselves. I remember Arafat used to say one thing in Arabic and another in English. Apparently that habit did not die with him.
"Maybe Islam isn't the enemy, but a certain offbranch is."
If that's the case then the rest of them have some serious house cleaning to do and they better get it done quick!
"Killing them is better than "making their eyes water.""
If we have to kill all of them piecemeal to win, it is going to take a long, long time.
What I'm looking for is a way to do them such collective damage that their belief system is affected in such a way that they, as a group, decide it is not worth the candle to continue.
Good luck, that's an impossible and deadend project. When they believe anything they do, especially if it results in their deaths and the deaths of all they love, you're having a pipe dream.
You think killing them all (which I never suggested, but whatever) is going to take a long, long time, imagine if your idea was applied to Christianity--do you think you could ever come up with something that would so damage the Christian belief system that it would affect all Christians of, say, a fundamental streak to stop a certain kind of behavior?
Short of killing them all, which I don't advocate, and I don't think I suggested you did either (sorry if anything was misunderstood), something needs to change minds.
If we don't change their minds we won't win.
If the way things are going is the best that can be done, then it's going to be a very, very long struggle.
I'm not suggesting that the belief system of all Muslims can be changed easily, but maybe with sufficient work and expertise, that of the majority can be; and without the tacit support of the majority, the terrorist elements will not be able to survive.
(1) Its faults and flaws are manifold and manifest. (2) We have the best government in the world.
In other words, we might fail? You would let the war go on indefinitely because we couldn't persuade them to stop killing us. You sound as if you might even let us lose the war if we couldn't win it with our current restraints.
I'm not going to agree with you on that.
Hey!~ that's not a bad idea...good thinking!!
/g
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.