Skip to comments.The General is Right. Terrorists will Flee when Facing Overwhelming Force
Posted on 09/18/2012 6:42:16 AM PDT by arthurus
...they also asked a retired Army general for comment.He said all these terrorists know is to fear power and force. The best was to control them, he offered, was to tell the country in no uncertain terms that if it killed 4 of our people, we would respond by killing 400 of theirs. This brought shock and dismay from mainstream media commentators across both the electronic and print news services. But, I agree with the general. I have seen it in action.
Some 43 years ago I commanded a small television and radio station in Tuy Hoa, Vietnam.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.info ...
Imagine how Julius Caesar would have responded if an isolated Roman diplomatic mission had been massacred. Caesar would be amused by American behavior abroad. He would understand the Chinese who know how to use power. Japan is quickly backing down.
Terrorists are basically bullies—If they know their target will fight back, they move on.
IMHO, the objective of these “uprisings” was to take the measure of Obama (he failed, BTW).
The only screw-up on the part of the rag-heads is that they did it before the election instead of after.
in the end, Men only “do right” for one of two reasons.
Because they fear God...
Because they fear other men.
That’s what the general was basically saying.
Obama’s reaction to all this.
He’s ordered in a double supply of toilet paper for October. /s
I do not agree - not quite. A better answer is that if they force the choice, we would rather lose 400 thugs (such as rioters invading an embassy) than 4 of us. We should maintain the capability to defend our embassies, whether using Marines on the ground or aircraft/UAVs in the air. If self-defense requires that we strafe a crowd, activate a Gatling gun from a window overlooking each embassy entrance, or fire grenades into the crowd, then that is what the actions of the crowd have triggered. Kill them then and there if necessary, but defend our personnel. As for going after the population after the fact, that is not acceptable.
Well said: all force necessary for self-defense, and self-defense includes active preemptive aggression, but vengeance is the Lord’s.
“As for going after the population after the fact, that is not acceptable.”
How about going after the country’s leaders? A “bunker-buster” through a few bedrooms might end it...
And a pair of brown pants....
Actually, there is a much simpler solution. Announce that you are creating special weapons for terrorists like Bullets coated in pigs blood, grenades containing pigs fat, etc. I would actually create some of these weapons and allow them to fall into the Muslim’s hands so they can analyze them and verify they contain pigs blood or fat. You might even want to paint the grenades bright red so they know what they are.
When they attack us, these people don’t fear us because they think they are going to paradise when they die. Simply remove their paradise reward and they will stop attacking.
I did not know that was so huge
Terrorists are not a force by themselves.
Their homes, women and children are their support branches, and somebody is paying them (they don’t do this crap for free!) and providing weapons and equipment.
If we waged war against their homes (yes, kill their women and children), and against their financial supporters, we could break them forever. Not gonna happen though. We don’t have what it takes to kill off their support, and the money trails lead to folks we’re not willing touch...
Too bad we can’t “Go Roman” on them.
If an Afghan soldier or police officer murders four Allied troops, we need to line 100 Afghanis (from his village, INCLUDING HIS EXTENDED FAMILY) and drop them into a wood chipper. If the Afghani is still alive, he goes last. That way we establish the appropriate blood price for murder of a Westerner.
We do need to secure our embassies. Flamethrowers and miniguns should be in every Embassy Marine armory, and there should be no hesitation in using them to protect the integrity of the embassy and its personnel.
Mao said, and yes, I have read Mao, that a guerilla (read thug) must be like a fish swimming in the sea of the populace. We must take that fish out of the water or take the water away from the fish. Either way, the fish dies. This fighting and killing and dieing business is serious business. Fight to win, or expect to be defeated and conquered. Our enemies use fear to keep most of the populace quiet. Making sure our Soldiers smile and say hi to the populace will not remove that fear. Fight to win, or expect to be defeated and conquered. The populace must be forced to make a choice of which side they support. Their cowardice is victory for our enemy. Fight to win, or expect to be defeated and conquered.
We need to be cautious when addressing such subject matter. The original posting here seems to indiscriminately flit between terrorists and a nation/state’s national government.
I presume this is in regard to the killings in Libya last week. The Libyan government didn’t do it, has not supported or condoned it, best as I can tell, and is a rather friendly government toward the US.
Even if the Libyan government were somehow complicit, any call that might entail wiping out 400 random Libyan civilians is intrinsically immoral.
Going after proper terroristic or military targets is another matter, one that can be licit.
“Terrorists are basically bullies”
Yes, very much so. Except, they are sophisticated enough to know that appearances matter, so they cloak their bullying with grievances and calls for justice. Which is to say, they are like those bullies who say “Why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourself!”
“The populace must be forced to make a choice of which side they support.”
Yup, that is the key. There are only two ways to appeal to the populace, either make them love us more than they love the enemy, or make them fear us more than they fear the enemy. We’ve tried the love angle, and it doesn’t work. So, there is only one sane option left.