Do you agree with this statement

[NLT]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

Yep, the Death Cult of Islam is picking up steam and needs to be dealt with. Bomb Mecca if they can't get their shit together.

 

[WinterBorn]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

 

[R.D.]

No one said it would be easy

 

[NLT]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

No one is suggesting that. Did you not read the statement.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes, although if we accidentally bomb a civilian target and cause high casualties think we absolutely should apologize to the appropriate people.

 

[edthecynic]

Sounds like Nazi "logic."

 

[WinterBorn]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

No one is suggesting that. Did you not read the statement.

Yes, I read the statement. "Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists."

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

No one is suggesting that. Did you not read the statement.

Yes, I read the statement. "Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists."

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

Valid point. It is a new kind of war and we need to develop a plan for how to prosecute it effectively. Just as you stated always acting after the fact means we are 2 steps behind.

 

[NLT]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

No one is suggesting that. Did you not read the statement.

Yes, I read the statement. "Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists."

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

You kill enough of them, you will get ahead, also you start with Muslim Governments that are sponsoring them, such as the house of Saud.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Radical Islam is an idea. You don't kill an idea by killing the people who believe in it.

You don't defeat an idea with guns and bombs, you defeat it with a better idea...

 

[NLT]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Radical Islam is an idea. You don't kill an idea by killing the people who believe in it.

You don't defeat an idea with guns and bombs, you defeat it with a better idea...

Like what?

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

There have been numerous, probably more than we know, that were caught before they could act. One, crossing the Canadian border with bombs, the shoe bomber, diaper bomber, etc. I think we can dispense with a civilian trial, it should be a swift military court and justice if found guilty.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sounds like Nazi "logic."

Yesterday, many posted in favor of jailing/bombing/killing all Muslims.

No one ever explained how they would go about it though. Presumably, they would invade every country on the planet and ...

 

[Carib Gyal]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

No one is suggesting that. Did you not read the statement.

Yes, I read the statement. "Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists."

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

This has become an attitude that is actually given serious attention. It may be the silliest viewpoint in this entire murderous contest. It's no different than asking in 1943 how to separate those who are members of the German Nazi Party from those who aren't. That has been the problem in trying to defeat these murderous animals up until now. Innocents will be killed along with guilty. That's why they call it war instead of hopscotch.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Again, I ask how you identify them. Unless they have committed acts of terrorism, they are not terrorists. If you only strike at those who have committed acts of terrorism, you are reacting and not acting. You never get ahead of the game.

There have been numerous, probably more than we know, that were caught before they could act. One, crossing the Canadian border with bombs, the shoe bomber, diaper bomber, etc. I think we can dispense with a civilian trial, it should be a swift military court and justice if found guilty.

The no-fly list jumped from about 10,000 known or suspected terrorists one year ago to about 21,000, according to government figures provided to the AP. Most people on the list are from other countries; about 500 are Americans.

 

[NLT]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Radical Islam is an idea. You don't kill an idea by killing the people who believe in it.

You don't defeat an idea with guns and bombs, you defeat it with a better idea...

Like what?

Looks like PMH just ran away

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I like reading Ralph Peters in general, since he is intelligent and cuts through the crap better than most.

I know he is limiting himself to terrorism here, but I see the enemy as more than Islamist terrorists. The enemy is Islamists period. The terrorists would have no room to operate without the enormous body of fellow Islamists tacitly supporting them and seeking the same ends.

It's really a shell game of sorts played out along the lines of "good cop, bad cop". The terrorists do the dirty work while those who are seeking the same goals try to position themselves as benign. They aren't. They are just as dangerous, or even more so as they are influencing perception in the west that their disturbing views on the world are somehow "moderate".

In Great Britain, a full 2/3 of the Muslims living there want to criminalize speech critical of Islam. 40% want to live according to Sharia. When asked if they support terrorism in order to achieve their aims, most will claim they don't -- to a westerner, anyway. That does not mean that they do not wish to turn Britain into a totalitarian state, however, so the problem here is infinitely more complex than a matter of just tracking down terrorists.

Peters is a military man, and is describing the role the military should play. The war being waged goes beyond the physical, though, and so we need an equally focused approach to the ideological. That is the war we seem to be losing if the number of useful idiots blathering away on internet discussion groups is any indication. This is a battle of culture, and we need to articulate why ours is better. With all the numb nuts out there with such personal problems that they end up hating their own culture so much they find common ground with Islamists in the old "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy -- well, that is the more difficult task.

 

[mudwhistle]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I agree but talk is cheap.

 

[mudwhistle]

One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

Lt Col Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is how to identify the enemy. How do you tell who is an islamic terrorist and who is merely a follower of Islam?

Do we go in and mercilessly destroy all of Islam?

Nope, just the humans. Leave the buildings intact.