Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The simplest way to look at this is that we risked a huge strategic error to gain a pissant tactical achievement. Not exactly the kind of bet that puts you on top.
I think that only people with attenuated intellect think that the likes of A.Q. can be defeated tactically. They comprise a belief system that cannot be destroyed with pinprick tactical strikes which may even be counter-productive. The only way to destroy an ideology is to offer alternatives that are obvious better choices. When people are presented with real options, and the A.Q. option is 3rd or 4th on the list of best options, A.Q. will finally wither on the vine.
Only a good strategic plan can make such other choices available. Violating sovereign borders for such an insignificant tactical victory is tantamount to 1 step forward and 2 steps back.
( the end of the Craig post )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( The start of the Fern irrationality)
No offenese intended, but I think it rather stupid to believe AQ and such types are motivated by religious ideology.
Most are common thugs and murderers attempting to mask their brutality in Muslim religiosity. If they could not hijack that philosophy, it would be another.
So, YES, you can tactically defeat them; "them" being those who hijack a religion and pursaude sheeple-like followers to strap bombs upon themselves in the mistaken belief of *winning* 72 virgins.
I do not believe Islam itself necessarily commands this, merely those who seek to pervert it for their own objectives. So, get rid of these types and stop the problem.
BTW: Still waiting for techs to use an accurate thread title in one of his (many) threads. We did not "attack Syria". :roll:
Fern
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, and IMHO, Fern manages to get it wrong on all counts. Not necessarily
wrong on the surface, but spectacularly wrong on the A causes B implications.
Lets take the Fern talking points one by one.
1. " No offenese intended, but I think it rather stupid to believe AQ and such types are motivated by religious ideology."
In the case of Ossama Bin Laden, he is deeply motivated by the Wahabist creed of Islam. And the decision of GHB to base troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War one, while seeming innocuous to us, was a mortal insult to him. It caused him to break with the Saudi Royal family, led to the very formation of Al-Quida, and almost all of
Al-Quida intelligentsia and recruits come from the Islamic faith on the Sunni side
of Islam.
2. " Most are common thugs and murderers attempting to mask their brutality in Muslim religiosity. If they could not hijack that philosophy, it would be another. "
Totally wrong again, Al-Quida leadership comes from the economically advantaged,
Ossama Bin Laden was minor Saudi Royalty and part heir to a huge family fortune,
Al-Zariwiri was a medical doctor. And they used their connections and anger to tap into Islamic discontents and revolts against existing governments all over the planet. Face the facts, we are still in the transition away from a former colonial system that dominated Islamic countries from Western North Africa all the way East to Indonesia and then North to the Philippines. And rebellions against actual
Western dominance are replaced by rebellions against Western economic dominance. As for Al-Quida recruits, many of the initial recruits were already engaged in such rebellions, but as Fern says they will also recruit thugs. But think of Al-Quida as more of a Mafia style crime family and clearinghouse, putting organized and university training into Islamic rebellions.
3. " So, YES, you can tactically defeat them; "them" being those who hijack a religion and pursaude sheeple-like followers to strap bombs upon themselves in the mistaken belief of *winning* 72 virgins."
Wrong again, as long as Al-Quida can motivate enough people to strap on bombs and blow themselves up, enough of those attacks will get through. So as a tactic, it can't be defeated. And dumb us, we don't have the brains to go after Al-Quida on the recruitment side of the equation and unwittingly become their best recruiters.
As we bring anarchy, corruption, social destabilization, collateral damage in our wake and turn entire countries into our private shooting galleries.
4. " I do not believe Islam itself necessarily commands this, merely those who seek to pervert it for their own objectives. So, get rid of these types and stop the problem."
You are only partly correct there, neither Christianity or Islam are religions that advocate universal war, but each advocates recruitment of others. Overall, Christianity has been more war like, but only a tiny fraction of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims subscribe to a per say anti Western stance. The object is not to increase the number of angry Muslims, so we set up camp in two quagmires and proceed to bully Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in the most bumbling and arrogant means possible.
5. " BTW: Still waiting for techs to use an accurate thread title in one of his (many) threads. We did not "attack Syria"
Get real Fern, anytime you put your military on foreign soil and open fire, its an act of war. Maybe you feel noble by inventing this delusion, but you only fool your self.
A proxy war may be a different thing, Russia used the tactic against us in Korea and Vietnam, and Reagan did it back to Russia in Afghanistan, but committing actual acts of war is something reserved for nations that cannot fight back. Which now reinforces the chilling me4ssage Iraq sent to any medium sized nation on earth with resources, who have to ask, if the US can do it to Iraq and Syria, how can we prevent the US from doing it to us. As some 40 nations now petition the IAEA for permits for nuclear plants.
You're an idiot. Seriously.
Facebook
Twitter