SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 4 January 2009, 10:39
Gryfen-FL Gryfen-FL is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: east coast
Posts: 3,272
Well, yes, agx.

Maybe your are a more refined, civilized person that I, or Jimbo.

However, comma:
If someone tells me that the sky is green and grass is blue, I would question their mental faculties.
__________________
Quote:
Since it was Virginia, did they go ahead and write a traffic ticket to the corpse when they were done?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 4 January 2009, 10:48
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by agx View Post
I guess when you can't debate the issues it's time to attack the person.
Nice try but he wasn't attacking you, he was giving you a backhanded compliment while at the same time questioning your motives.

That "attack the person" counter works well when the discussion centers around political ideology but not as well in a thread where facts need to be used.

You comments, IMO, appear fairly simplistic and niave, so I can see how someone would find it difficult to take them seriously.

At some point people who have much more experience than you get frustrated trying to counter points that aren't on the same level as others points of disagreement or agreement are, since it is mentally tiring to be drug down to the level it requires for a response.

That's not attacking you either, it's just commentary on how your posts read and the points that are contained within them.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 4 January 2009, 11:15
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by agx View Post
I guess when you can't debate the issues it's time to attack the person
When you get a grasp on the basic facts, then maybe I'll ignore the issue and attack you.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 4 January 2009, 13:26
ReconValhalla ReconValhalla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 44
Smile Oh boy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. You want to make war on all of them? Change Muslim to Jew in your post and you sound like fucking Hitler.
Ok, I understand your point, but consider that the Jews did not ram two airplanes into the Reichstag nor did they try to sink a German warship.

We could never kill EVERY Muslim on the planet, but we can certainly send them back to the Stone Age, as we did to Japan and Germany. The only way we could get there is through the proper mindset, and it is said mindset that we lack. We won WWII by going all out, and that is the only way we will win this war.

I don't get off on being an internet hardass....or saying "so and so" needs to be dead. But we need to bring a war without rules to the Muslims if we expect to keep our way of life.

Some people mentioned earlier that we should infringe upon the rights of Muslims in the States. I don't think this is right, even though at times my emotions say otherwise. However, keep in mind that if Muslims had their way in America, they would not be so fair and just as to fall in step with our beloved Constitution. On another note, I am really proud to see so many people sticking to the Constitution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
Two comments.

First, I agree with the quote above. While I do consider Christianity a threat, it cannot be ignored that the religion's followers have dramatically changed their behaviors in the past thousand years. Simply, Christians have decided that they don't wish to forcibly impress their ideas upon others -- and openly (and aggressively) punish those who are so fanatical as to utilize violence in the name of their religion. This is where we should want Islam to arrive. And it CAN.

Secondly, the commentary bordering on genocide is the danger we face when we refuse to properly address the Islamic threat. People's emotions are easily riled -- we as a species are not near as advanced as we like to brag we are, and there are numerous examples within the last 30 years (well after WWII) that show how easily and quickly our emotions can result in nothing less than atrocious behavior.

The idea that we are in a Global War on Terrorism is simply stupid. We are in a Global War on Islam -- whether we want to admit it or not. Certainly Muslims don't doubt this. Whether they will tell you that they are suspicious of the West's dealings with Islam in regards to recent wars, the support of Israel, issues surrounding oil, religious equality (including even when we capitulate and allow for the masking of windows at private swimming hours at public pools), whatever -- Muslims look at the West through jaundiced eyes at a minimum, many look at the West as an enemy (in advance, there are many examples of enemies conducting trade and other relations).

We should openly acknowledge that we are in a war against Islam, and wage it as such. Or surrender the war. Whichever route selected, we need to accept the reality and choose a course. Personally, I would rather we didn't surrender. If we decided to fight it seriously, then we should target Muslim nations throughout the world and clearly state that violent acts (or the tolerance of their citizenry conducting violent acts) will result in their destruction -- and then carry that out. I believe the violence would initially be intense, and scores of Muslims would die. I also believe they would lose the war -- the more aggressive that we fought, the quicker they would surrender. We should not forget that "surrender" means there are conditions that are to be met by the losers -- and we should demand certain changes in the Islamic religion as part of our acceptance of their surrender. Conditions, BTW, which are put forth and championed by Muslims -- not by Christians. We cannot MAKE them change their religion to one that is peaceful, not directly. No, our job should be to make it so painful to continue to practice assclownery behavior that they themselves seek to change their beliefs.

I really don't care whatever happens. Because I have no illusions that we will surrender. No, we'll eventually stomp that ass -- but if we don't do it sooner than later, sadly lots of Muslims will die that really didn't have to. Even to the extent that it could appear genocidal -- which will be another blight on our history of so-called "progress"....
SOTB, you are absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Did you have your pet hamster type some of that?
Ah hah! I have started a hamster trend in this thread. I claim full responsibility. Go ahead, bicker about Israel, Palestine, Jews and Muslims. The hamsters will be plotting. Misdirection, my friends, misdirection.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 4 January 2009, 13:49
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReconValhalla View Post
Ok, I understand your point, but consider that the Jews did not ram two airplanes into the Reichstag nor did they try to sink a German warship.
There have been Jewish terrorists. There have been Catholic terrorists. Shall we blame every Jew or every Catholic for the actions of those few?

Quote:
We could never kill EVERY Muslim on the planet, but we can certainly send them back to the Stone Age, as we did to Japan and Germany. The only way we could get there is through the proper mindset, and it is said mindset that we lack. We won WWII by going all out, and that is the only way we will win this war.
I'd suggest you don't have a fucking clue how we won WWII. We went "all out"?

Did we? So why did we capture so many Germans, Italians, Japanese, etc.? After all, if we were going "all out", shouldn't we have just killed them all? Why did we bypass Rabaul? If we were going "all out", shouldn't we have obliterated it? Geneva Convention or Law of Land Warfare mean anything to you?

Quote:
But we need to bring a war without rules to the Muslims if we expect to keep our way of life.
Nonsense. Complete and utter bullshit. The great majority of Muslims don't give a damn about our way of life. However, doing what you suggest would clearly lose us our way of life, since you are willing to give up the very principles that make us the nation we are.

Quote:
However, keep in mind that if Muslims had their way in America, they would not be so fair and just as to fall in step with our beloved Constitution.
Nonsense again. You are using the words of a very small minority of Muslims to make claims against all Muslims.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 4 January 2009, 13:57
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
We are in a Global War on Islam -- whether we want to admit it or not. Certainly Muslims don't doubt this. Whether they will tell you that they are suspicious of the West's dealings with Islam in regards to recent wars, the support of Israel, issues surrounding oil, religious equality (including even when we capitulate and allow for the masking of windows at private swimming hours at public pools), whatever -- Muslims look at the West through jaundiced eyes at a minimum, many look at the West as an enemy (in advance, there are many examples of enemies conducting trade and other relations).

We should openly acknowledge that we are in a war against Islam, and wage it as such.
I disagree. First, there are a lot of Muslims who more than doubt it, they would disagree entirely with you. One of them is the elected leader of the most populous Islamic nation on Earth... who is fighting the same war, on our side.

What you are claiming may be primarily true in the Middle-East. I suspect it is may even be true in a significant portion of South-West Asia. It is not true throughout Islam.

I've pointed out already how WWII was not a war on National Socialism. The survival of Franco's Spain demonstrates that. In a similar way, the war we are in now is not a war with Islam. It may be a war with certain fundamental or radical sects of Islam, but it is not a war with Islam as a whole.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 4 January 2009, 14:01
Jong Jong is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fantasy Land
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
I disagree. First, there are a lot of Muslims who more than doubt it, they would disagree entirely with you. One of them is the elected leader of the most populous Islamic nation on Earth... who is fighting the same war, on our side.

What you are claiming may be primarily true in the Middle-East. I suspect it is may even be true in a significant portion of South-West Asia. It is not true throughout Islam.

I've pointed out already how WWII was not a war on National Socialism. The survival of Franco's Spain demonstrates that. In a similar way, the war we are in now is not a war with Islam. It may be a war with certain fundamental or radical sects of Islam, but it is not a war with Islam as a whole.
Hey man, you forget you are responding to Marines. All they like to do is kill things!!
__________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

Put a small child in a playpen with an apple and a bunny. If s/he eats the apple and plays with the bunny, s/he's normal;but if s/he eats the bunny and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. Somewhere along the line we must have been TAUGHT to do the wrong thing.

Maynard James Keenan
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 4 January 2009, 14:05
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jong View Post
Hey man, you forget you are responding to Marines. All they like to do is kill things!!

Hmmmm...considering the Island-hopping campaign is one of the few places in WWII where you could claim that the approach was "Kill them all, let God sort them out"... you may have a point.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 4 January 2009, 14:12
ReconValhalla ReconValhalla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
Hmmmm...considering the Island-hopping campaign is one of the few places in WWII where you could claim that the approach was "Kill them all, let God sort them out"... you may have a point.
LOL

touche!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 4 January 2009, 14:22
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReconValhalla View Post
... but we can certainly send them back to the Stone Age, as we did to Japan and Germany.
We don't need to send them back to the stone age. What we need is for all of the quiet supporters and minor sympathizers to understand that their future does not lie in the next detonation of a suicide bomber or IED, or in the next spent casing in a Mumbai style attack. So that all the people who voted for HAMAS understand that doing so was the wrong move; that you don't elect groups who can't wrap their head around the roles and responsibilities of a Westphalian state.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 4 January 2009, 14:29
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
We don't need to send them back to the stone age. What we need is for all of the quiet supporters and minor sympathizers to understand that their future does not lie in the next detonation of a suicide bomber or IED, or in the next spent casing in a Mumbai style attack. So that all the people who voted for HAMAS understand that doing so was the wrong move; that you don't elect groups who can't wrap their head around the roles and responsibilities of a Westphalian state.

Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 4 January 2009, 15:34
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 7,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
If you aren't willing to give up your right to free speech, don't ask others to give up theirs.
I think that what they are doing is transcending the spirit of the first amendment. Much like the law that says you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

But on that note, I would be more than willing to give up my right to yell "Death to America" while pissing on the stars and stripes on National TV in order to get rid of these damn Muslim fanatics. I mean, the most controversial thing I do (morally, I guess) is to smoke and drink in bars and screw unsuspecting college girls through clever manipulation.

But seriously, I really do think that George Washington and Benny Franklin would be having second thoughts about the ambiguous language that they used in the constitution if they knew how lawyers would pick apart and bend it in such a manner that would allow certain things to continue (such as this) because "the constitution says this".

The bottom line is that if anyone I care about gets hurt by these people finally taking the next step and start strapping on plastic explosive vests (which, in my opinion, is only a matter of time) simply because no one gave a shit enough to say 'enough is enough'.....then I am checking out a SAW from the armory and all bets are off according to who has "human rights". Constitution be damned.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 4 January 2009, 15:42
redhawk redhawk is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,907
Did someone genocide agx's account?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:06
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
I really do think that George Washington and Benny Franklin would be having second thoughts about the ambiguous language that they used in the constitution if they knew how lawyers would pick apart and bend it in such a manner that would allow certain things to continue (such as this) because "the constitution says this".
The quote by Benjamin Franklin that Jimbo posted doesn't sound like ambiguous language at all, and the sentiment that it expresses is most certainly not anachronistic. The Constitution is a dynamic and evolving document that will be continually interpreted as our society evolves. I would argue that the language of the Constitution is kept purposefully vague in some places to allow us the latitude we feel appropriate in interpreting it. Think of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
The bottom line is that if anyone I care about gets hurt by these people finally taking the next step and start strapping on plastic explosive vests (which, in my opinion, is only a matter of time) simply because no one gave a shit enough to say 'enough is enough'.....then I am checking out a SAW from the armory and all bets are off according to who has "human rights". Constitution be damned.
What happened to Fish78?
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:06
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 20,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Did someone genocide agx's account?



Not me. I'm not feeling genocidal today.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:09
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
One of them is the elected leader of the most populous Islamic nation on Earth... who is fighting the same war, on our side.
GH, did you read that article I posted a couple pages back? I know it was cursory, but what did you think about the author's assertion that the ideology is spreading even while the people who put it into practice are being jailed or killed? Since you're in that part of the world and spend time in Indonesia, I would like to hear your opinion.
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:10
ReconValhalla ReconValhalla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
We don't need to send them back to the stone age. What we need is for all of the quiet supporters and minor sympathizers to understand that their future does not lie in the next detonation of a suicide bomber or IED, or in the next spent casing in a Mumbai style attack. So that all the people who voted for HAMAS understand that doing so was the wrong move; that you don't elect groups who can't wrap their head around the roles and responsibilities of a Westphalian state.
I agree with ya there, but I still think the solution to making them understand this is by giving them no quarter when they do the wrong thing.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:16
Chaplain's Avatar
Chaplain Chaplain is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
We don't need to send them back to the stone age. What we need is for all of the quiet supporters and minor sympathizers to understand that their future does not lie in the next detonation of a suicide bomber or IED, or in the next spent casing in a Mumbai style attack. So that all the people who voted for HAMAS understand that doing so was the wrong move; that you don't elect groups who can't wrap their head around the roles and responsibilities of a Westphalian state.
Amen! And threatening genocide does not win friends and influence people, or cause people to vote out the HAMAS idiots. It causes people to run towards any one who promises protection or freedom, even if they are totalitarian idiots. See Hitler for how that turns out! Unfortunately, "Give me liberty or give me death" works in the Gaza strip today (and Iraq and Afghanistan) as well as it did in Thermopylae or in Boston in 1776. And no, I am not saying that the Palestinians (or the Taliban) are great "liberators of the oppressed" or people to be admired. They just have a good propaganda angle, and use it to motivate their people to continue to endure the poverty and destruction caused by their stupid political decisions. The human desire for freedom is a powerful tool used by both honorable and dishonorable men. Using dishonorable means (genocide) to accomplish supposedly honorable ends (peace) does not work. (Again, see Hitler.) Muslims are escaping from totalitarian regimes and finding real peace in America. Welcome, friends of liberty! Yes, even if it means we also let in some more terrorists. When more Muslims experience true liberty, the less Muslims will want to give it up to terrorists, or have to turn to terrorists for safety and protection. Our constitution, as messy and ambiguous as it is, mistreated and twisted by lawyers as it is, is still a beacon of hope for all peoples of the world, regardless of race or religion.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 4 January 2009, 16:43
mags123 mags123 is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 70
I think one needs to come to terms with the fact that there will always be a certain "anti-Western" attitude present in some communities in the Middle East.

Realistically, there is little we can do about it and it might be more beneficial to practice some realpolitik instead of using grand ideological statements and policies.

I'm afraid that "sending them back to the stone age" will be very counter-productive. Instead, work with the elements of society that are amenable.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 4 January 2009, 18:28
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
I think that what they are doing is transcending the spirit of the first amendment. Much like the law that says you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.
I think the British authorities probably claimed exactly the same about Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018