News: Check out Columbus Townhall's new bookstore: http://bookstore.columbustownhall.com/
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
May 18, 2012, 10:42:16 PM
*

Recent

Your Info

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2012, 10:42:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Statistics

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 40602
  • Total Topics: 5158
  • Online Today: 18
  • Online Ever: 252
  • (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 14
Total: 14

Links

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Topic: War On Terror - The Bottom Line  (Read 1830 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
« on: July 27, 2004, 05:07:04 PM »
MarathonMan Offline
Trusted Allies
CTH Associate Professor

*
Reputation: +0/-0
Posts: 1216




Ignore

One of our CTH members forwarded a forwarded this to me today.

Arabs, Americans, Muslims & the World - Something to Think About

This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
(I have cut and pasted the below article to include it in this email without you having to open the below link, however, if you prefer to read it in it's original format, I have pasted the link below.  Otherwise, just scroll below and let this information sink in.)

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100926.html

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation.  We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth.  But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions.  I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.  To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict.  This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).  The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001.  The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;  First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001.  (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).[3]

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material.  There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference.  You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.  Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.  Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing – by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels.  I don't blame the peaceful Muslims.  What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal.  There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?  It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam.  This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world.  The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.  Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.  The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time.  It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage.  It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done.  Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France.  Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France.  France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.  See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel.  [6]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it.  After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims.  If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?  The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost.  We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?  Simple.  Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.  And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?  Again, the answer is simple.  We can lose the war by imploding.  That is,  defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.  If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling.  Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?  This is war.  For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.  We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope.  We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.  Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?  No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.  None of those words apply to war.  Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.  I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal.  It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.  Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.  We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police.  These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.  They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.  And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.  Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.  If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.  To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.  Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.  Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal.  It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.  Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels.  That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world.  We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'.  That charge is valid in at least one respect.  We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.  We can't.  If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.  And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for  anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire.  If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less.  They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions.  The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.  Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force.  Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.  And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that  they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.  They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.  Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above.  If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country.  It is your future we are talking about.  Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,

Dad
« Last Edit: July 27, 2004, 05:07:38 PM by MarathonMan » Logged
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."   -    Edmund Burke
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2004, 05:20:51 PM »
dain Offline
Verified Member
CTH Professor

*****
Reputation: +1/-0
Posts: 3609




Ignore

Very powerful...and yes, I agree, defeat will be glacial but real nonetheless.  I do think there is still time for Europe IF they listen to the UK and (yes) Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.  There are still sensible people in those countries.

Ultimately, as the desperation grows, we will see Bosnias crop up all over Europe.  Postmodern values (e.g., transnational citizenship) is a hot-house flower...once the electricity stops and the shooting starts, many of these people will fight to defend themselves.  And we need to be there when they do.
Logged
"Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites....Men of intemperate minds cannot be free." [/i][/font] Edmund Burke
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2008, 09:18:53 PM »
Ideological Sceptic Offline
CTH Associate Professor

****
Reputation: +5/-41
Posts: 1519




Ignore

Rand Corporation: Drop 'The War on Terror'

Rand Corporation Press Release on New Study

Quote

Tuesday
July 29, 2008

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida


Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.


...

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."


...

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.


Press Release: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

Full Report: Uh sorry -- They're selling it for $33  /   $29.70 discounted online price


Logged
Critically and Intelligently Engage All Ideas

Ignoring ideas is Never an Option

« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2008, 11:55:56 PM »
CO2HOG Offline
Verified Member
CTH Associate Professor

WWW
*****
Reputation: +2/-0
Posts: 1273




Ignore

Quote
The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.

BULL CRAP - Who gives a flying fornication what a bunch of de-balled, pandering, political wimps say!

Take a look at what’s happening in the "United Kingdom" and "Australia" and ask your self this:

Do we need a bunch of de-balled, pandering political wimps here in the US?  No, we don’t!  We need Real Men, and or Real Woman, also known as LEADERS - who can tell the pandering wimps to SHUT IT!  Why? Because:

THIS - IS - AMERICA! - The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!
Logged
Those [Big Al & Gang] who can make you believe absurdities [The sky is falling] can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire

Stand for free speech  Tristan Emmanuel  Ezra Levant  Free Mark Steyn!  TROP
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2008, 07:32:36 PM »
Ideological Sceptic Offline
CTH Associate Professor

****
Reputation: +5/-41
Posts: 1519




Ignore


Quote

Do we need a bunch of de-balled, pandering political wimps here in the US? No, we don’t! We need Real Men, and or Real Woman, also known as LEADERS - who can tell the pandering wimps to SHUT IT!


I agree -- that's why I'm voting for Obama.

Look what Bush - Cheney - Rumfeld have given us.  Massive failure and huge deficits.

 
Logged
Critically and Intelligently Engage All Ideas

Ignoring ideas is Never an Option

« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2008, 08:19:33 PM »
CO2HOG Offline
Verified Member
CTH Associate Professor

WWW
*****
Reputation: +2/-0
Posts: 1273




Ignore

Quote
I agree -- that's why I'm voting for Obama.

lol - good luck with that.
Logged
Those [Big Al & Gang] who can make you believe absurdities [The sky is falling] can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire

Stand for free speech  Tristan Emmanuel  Ezra Levant  Free Mark Steyn!  TROP
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2009, 09:10:56 PM »
TonyBlair Offline
Verified Member
CTH Professor

*****
Reputation: +54/-0
Posts: 3824




Ignore

Islamic Terrorists Forming Cells In America

Abdurahman Alamoudi, former president of the American Muslim Foundation, actively raised money for Hezbollah as well as Hamas.
Hezbollah Expected To Be A Major Threat By 2014
By David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent


Jerusalem — Hezbollah could be one of the first security challenges faced by the new Obama administration. An official government report concludes the Iranian-backed Islamic terror group has been forming sleeper cells throughout the United States that could become operational.

The report estimates Hezbollah could become a much more potent national security threat by 2014. The group was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, which killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French servicemen.

“The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah does not have a known history of
fomenting attacks inside the U.S., but that could change if there is some
kind of ‘triggering’ event, the homeland assessment cautions,” the report
said.


The report, obtained by the Middle East Newsline and marked “for official use only,” did not define a “triggering
event.” Most of the threats cited in the report had been raised by the
Homeland Security Department.


The 38-page report, titled 2008 Interagency Intelligence Committee on
Terrorism, said Hezbollah was being directed by the leadership in Lebanon as
well as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The assessment said the
Hezbollah network in the United States was engaged in money laundering, drug
trafficking, weapons smuggling and extortion.


http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/22/top_stories/doc49781a64e0d2b381984861.txt
Logged
We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.  --Ronald Reagan

Al Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warming

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - Camus

The person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect.  --Hayek
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2009, 07:56:05 PM »
Counter Offline
Verified Member
CTH Associate Professor

*****
Reputation: +15/-1
Posts: 1673




Ignore

Now, as Obama says, that the U.S. will stop "dictating" I am sure it is only a matter of time before Iran stops its nuclear weapons development, and ends its rhetoric that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

Undoubtedly, this ex-Gitmo detainee martyr did not get the memo that Obama was in town and things were going to be differrent.

Bomber's Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing Gitmo

Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack.

"In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet," al-Ajmi says in the video. "I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html
Logged
Counter

No Coal. Know Cold.
Know coal. No cold.
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2009, 09:05:21 PM »
Snowball Offline
Distinguished Professor
Verified Member
CTH Distinguished Professor

*****
Reputation: +10/-0
Posts: 6911




Ignore

This isn't a joke

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/HY_utC-hrjI&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/HY_utC-hrjI&rel=0</a>
Logged
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2009, 07:08:45 PM »
Counter Offline
Verified Member
CTH Associate Professor

*****
Reputation: +15/-1
Posts: 1673




Ignore

This is a very good reason to leave Afghanistan (now):


Excerpt:

The actual Rules of Engagement (ROEs) are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts, those restrictions include the following:

* No night or surprise searches
* Villagers are to be warned prior to searches
* Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches
* U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first
* U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present
* Only women can search women
* Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.

Often, rules of engagement require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken. In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.

To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118941

Try telling these rules to General Sherman or General Patton; they would quit or shoot the messenger.

Rules of Engagement (ROE)
ROE = HTL
(HTL) How to Lose

« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 07:13:49 PM by Counter » Logged
Counter

No Coal. Know Cold.
Know coal. No cold.
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2009, 09:14:04 AM »
TonyBlair Offline
Verified Member
CTH Professor

*****
Reputation: +54/-0
Posts: 3824




Ignore

Wait a minute!  George Soros did not approve this!  What is going on here?

For the first time, NYT prints op-ed calling for U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear program  [Tom Gross]

This morning, for the first time to my knowledge, the New York Times — which as everyone knows is, alas, America’s most influential newspaper — has agreed to run an article explicitly calling for the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear program (and the “sooner the better” it says).

The article is dry and academic and long (it runs to two pages online) and there are much better arguments to be made for such a move, but it is significant nonetheless as it might finally open up liberal public opinion in America to this possibility.

The last paragraph of the article reads:

    Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

(On a previous occasion when I advocated the possibility of such an airstrike, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann named me the “world’s worst person,” although Olbermann misunderstood and misrepresented my argument.)

For a more substantive case on why military action to prevent Iran going nuclear is (at least in my opinion) more preferable by far than allowing Iran to go nuclear, please see: “Obama, and the world, in 2012, after he fails to deal with Iran”.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWM2OTkxMmI2NzIzZGU3N2Y1NDNmYmFjYjA3MDA2YzE=
Logged
We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.  --Ronald Reagan

Al Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warming

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - Camus

The person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect.  --Hayek
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines