Do you agree with this statement

[HereWeGoAgain]

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...

So you think you're going to change the way these people think?

The thinking changes ocne they become as corrupted as we are in the West. Capitalism and Western consumer goods do wonders for that. Most people watching porn with a beer in their hand, or a dick, don't rise up to go bomb something in the name of God, they're busy.

So now you like the idea of nation building,colonialism and capitalism?

 

[mudwhistle]

Like what?

Like tolerance, like anti-tribalism, like capitalism, like church and state separation, like secularism, like humanism, like comparative religion, like having an open mind, and the like. Summed up, Liberalism. It works here, for the most part, and can work there as well. The True Believers are the problem, they always are no matter what faith or ideology.

you are high. Muslims are the most conservative people on the planet.

The Conservative part, the Reactionary part, that is the problem. That's what makes Liberalism the solution. When they care as little as most Christians do, being Christian in name only, problem solved, at least on the blowing shit up in the name of God part.

Yup, Christians are always screaming "ALLAH AKBAR!!!", when they blow shit up.

Currently they don't actually care that much about their faith, for the most part, but they did once and we have the slaughters and Dark Ages to prove it. Should this keep up it won't be long before you little monsters are blowing up Muslin buildings and burning the Holy Qur'an. The history is very clear.

Yeah, give us enough motivation.

The difference being we are civilized and Muslims...not so much. They would cut your throat as easy as look at you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Like tolerance, like anti-tribalism, like capitalism, like church and state separation, like secularism, like humanism, like comparative religion, like having an open mind, and the like. Summed up, Liberalism. It works here, for the most part, and can work there as well. The True Believers are the problem, they always are no matter what faith or ideology.

you are high. Muslims are the most conservative people on the planet.

The Conservative part, the Reactionary part, that is the problem. That's what makes Liberalism the solution. When they care as little as most Christians do, being Christian in name only, problem solved, at least on the blowing shit up in the name of God part.

Yup, Christians are always screaming "ALLAH AKBAR!!!", when they blow shit up.

Currently they don't actually care that much about their faith, for the most part, but they did once and we have the slaughters and Dark Ages to prove it. Should this keep up it won't be long before you little monsters are blowing up Muslin buildings and burning the Holy Qur'an. The history is very clear.

Yeah, give us enough motivation.

The difference being we are civilized and Muslims...not so much. They would cut your throat as easy as look at you.

You aren't civilized, not even close.

 

[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...

So you think you're going to change the way these people think?

The thinking changes ocne they become as corrupted as we are in the West. Capitalism and Western consumer goods do wonders for that. Most people watching porn with a beer in their hand, or a dick, don't rise up to go bomb something in the name of God, they're busy.

So now you like the idea of nation building,colonialism and capitalism?

I like the idea of walking the walk, instead of talking the talk.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

This post could just as easily have been directed at the murderous Muslims and those who support them, what used to be called "giving comfort to the enemy."

After all the words, the accusations, the pointed fingers, it comes down to this: They are no better than we are, and we no better than them. They would like the world to be what their vision of it can be, and we would like the world to be what our vision of it can be. If both sides must fight to accomplish that vision, so be it.

 

[Iceweasel]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

He's saying to not let the lawyers micro-manage the war the way they like to do, all PC, taking prisoners and having expensive time consuming civilian trials.

They need to clean up their act or the civilized world needs to do it for them. There will be collateral damage, that's a fallout for not cleaning up your act. It will amount to an apology tour, with probably big payouts for family members. They need to accept the risk since the rest of the world has to risk breathing non Muslim air.

 

[Ravi]

I don't agree with it. This part in particular sounds somewhat retarded and contradictory.

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.

 

[G.T.]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

He's saying to not let the lawyers micro-manage the war the way they like to do, all PC, taking prisoners and having expensive time consuming civilian trials.

They need to clean up their act or the civilized world needs to do it for them. There will be collateral damage, that's a fallout for not cleaning up your act. It will amount to an apology tour, with probably big payouts for family members. They need to accept the risk since the rest of the world has to risk breathing non Muslim air.

Short sighted

As i said.

"Accept the risk?"

Accept what? Being born somewhere a terrorist might be hiding nearby or shopping at that day, and getting blown up?

How do you accept an unknown risk? Thats pretty retarded.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

The enemy is already lawless. We are automatically at a disadvantage. Not having legal recourse is no big deal if it allows us a level playing ground.
Defining the enemy is absolutely as simple as slapping a label and presto. Identifying those that have that label is a science and requires extensive recon and in depth analysis of the subsequent intel....constantly during the course of the conflict.

What he said is not short sighted. It is a basic outline of how to conduct this type of conflict....

 

[G.T.]

Its short sighted to the point of being blatant

 

[Jarhead]

I don't agree with it. This part in particular sounds somewhat retarded and contradictory.

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.

huh?

We beat Japan.

They rebuilt.

If they opted to attack us again in the 1960's, it does not mean we did not beat them 20 years earlier.

It is not contradictory.

 

[G.T.]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

The enemy is already lawless. We are automatically at a disadvantage. Not having legal recourse is no big deal if it allows us a level playing ground.
Defining the enemy is absolutely as simple as slapping a label and presto. Identifying those that have that label is a science and requires extensive recon and in depth analysis of the subsequent intel....constantly during the course of the conflict.

What he said is not short sighted. It is a basic outline of how to conduct this type of conflict....

Youre corny, dude.

"Theyre lawless so let us be!"
"Labeling them isnt a science, finding out who to label is!"

Childish clap trap nonsense. Not very bright at all.

 

[Jarhead]

Its short sighted to the point of being blatant

its an outline.
Nowhere does it discuss how it would be implemented.

Truth is, it is more of the "mindset" required to win a war against lawless terrorists that do not adhere to the Geneva Convention.

Easy to implement?

Hell no.

But likely the only way to win.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

The enemy is already lawless. We are automatically at a disadvantage. Not having legal recourse is no big deal if it allows us a level playing ground.
Defining the enemy is absolutely as simple as slapping a label and presto. Identifying those that have that label is a science and requires extensive recon and in depth analysis of the subsequent intel....constantly during the course of the conflict.

What he said is not short sighted. It is a basic outline of how to conduct this type of conflict....

Youre corny, dude.

"Theyre lawless so let us be!"
"Labeling them isnt a science, finding out who to label is!"

Childish clap trap nonsense. Not very bright at all.

I guess this is too deep for you to grasp.

Let me make it easy.

The label is simple....Anyone who decides to kill those that do not conform to Islam and are involved in conspiring to do so are Islamic Terrorists.

Identifying those with that label is the difficult part.

Hope that helps.

Must be tough being slow.

 

[G.T.]

The only way to win? No, intelligence and small forces which minimize collateral damage and DO apologize for it when it happens is a much better world

And there is no "win."

Its an ideaology. And one that is exacerbated by the very act of fighting against it.

Stamping out pockets of it is the only way, coupled with crippling govts who sponsor or support it.

 

[G.T.]

I dont like most of it.

One, if war becomes lawless (the lawyer part), then our own men and women face the same lawlessness with no possible sanctioning of the enemy for inhumane tactic, for any and all future wars.

Two - not apologizing for collateral damage is just flat out being a dick, just to be a dick. Its cold, especially considering the collateral are innocent human lives.

Three, defining the enemy is a science here in this modern warfare.....its not as simple as slapping the label and presto.

The whole thing seems really short sighted and lacks depth of thought.

Of course, none of this post excuses terrorist savages whatsoever but in politics world, these are stupid games yall play.

The enemy is already lawless. We are automatically at a disadvantage. Not having legal recourse is no big deal if it allows us a level playing ground.
Defining the enemy is absolutely as simple as slapping a label and presto. Identifying those that have that label is a science and requires extensive recon and in depth analysis of the subsequent intel....constantly during the course of the conflict.

What he said is not short sighted. It is a basic outline of how to conduct this type of conflict....

Youre corny, dude.

"Theyre lawless so let us be!"
"Labeling them isnt a science, finding out who to label is!"

Childish clap trap nonsense. Not very bright at all.

I guess this is too deep for you to grasp.

Let me make it easy.

The label is simple....Anyone who decides to kill those that do not conform to Islam and are involved in conspiring to do so are Islamic Terrorists.

Identifying those with that label is the difficult part.

Hope that helps.

Must be tough being slow.

Roll eyes

The point was. You saying the labeling is easy and then describing what goes into finding out who to label was sort of.my fucking point.....but you took that ball to run with just in order to be a disagreeable blowhard douche.

I.e. being yourself.

 

[Carib Gyal]

The only way to win? No, intelligence and small forces which minimize collateral damage and DO apologize for it when it happens is a much better world

And there is no "win."

Its an ideaology. And one that is exacerbated by the very act of fighting against it.

Stamping out pockets of it is the only way, coupled with crippling govts who sponsor or support it.

You've changed the topic from what to do (the OP), to how to do it (strategy).

 

[G.T.]

The only way to win? No, intelligence and small forces which minimize collateral damage and DO apologize for it when it happens is a much better world

And there is no "win."

Its an ideaology. And one that is exacerbated by the very act of fighting against it.

Stamping out pockets of it is the only way, coupled with crippling govts who sponsor or support it.

You've changed the topic from what to do (the OP), to how to do it (strategy).

What to do as outlined in the OP is part of a strategy, but anyhoo.... i getcha.

 

[Jarhead]

The only way to win? No, intelligence and small forces which minimize collateral damage and DO apologize for it when it happens is a much better world

And there is no "win."

Its an ideaology. And one that is exacerbated by the very act of fighting against it.

Stamping out pockets of it is the only way, coupled with crippling govts who sponsor or support it.

Islamic Terrorists have been at war with us for decades...we have been at war with them for the better part of 15 years. We have used our intel and small forces and minimized collateral damage....we have stamped out pockets of it and crippled governments who sponsor and support it.
And the result is more aggressive terrorist acts worldwide.

FYI sparky.....Nazism was an ideology. The world WON against Nazism.

Stop with the talking points and look deep into what you are saying .

In other words, use your brain.

 

[Jarhead]

The only way to win? No, intelligence and small forces which minimize collateral damage and DO apologize for it when it happens is a much better world

And there is no "win."

Its an ideaology. And one that is exacerbated by the very act of fighting against it.

Stamping out pockets of it is the only way, coupled with crippling govts who sponsor or support it.

You've changed the topic from what to do (the OP), to how to do it (strategy).

As I said...it was an outline of the "mindset" required to beat this type of enemy.

One will never win a war without the proper mindset.

It was said to criticize the current administrations mindset.....and I agree with the criticism.