Taliban Are Beheading Their Way through Former Pakistan Tourist Haven

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Julius Shark


I?m tired of the pussies in this Country that won?t let us start beheading Taliban.

If we went in and started public beheadings of Taliban, how long do you think it would take to get control of these thugs?

It would all be over in a matter of weeks.

Weakness is complex. Strength is simple.

Yeah, that worked really well for the Soviets. There is no way you and Zebo are over the age of 25.

actually it did work well for the Russians. ever wonder why Muslim terrorist don't mess with Russia? because they got the message decades ago that if they Mayra themselves the Russians will go and kill every single family member of the terrorist.

I guarantee you that if other countries did this terrorism will suffer greatly. nobody wants to see their mother shot because of their actions.

Way to be incredibly wrong.

Do you ever read a newspaper? Why don't you check out the Beslan school hostage taking? You know the one where Muslim terrorists killed more than 300 Russians, most of them children? Or the Moscow theater hostage situation? You know the one where Muslim terrorists took 900 people hostage, and about 150 died. Muslim terrorists mess with Russia at least as often as they mess with the US, probably moreso.

Guess some of the Muslims didn't get the message decades ago that the Russians' approach to terrorism works well. Or do you care to take back what you said?

Aye, it's almost monthly compared to once a decade.

Citrix will come back with something more outrageous, it's how he functions.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The Taliban must be slaughtered mercilessly for this madness to end. There is no other solution. Their will to fight must be broken, and the only way to accomplish that is to destroy them all. Every village that supports the Taliban must be destroyed. Not just bombed, but completely destroyed. Everyone must be killed. The Taliban must be put in a position where they have to choose between surrender or annihilation. Everyone knows this.

Wasn't that tried in Viet Nam?
Didn't work then .... won't work now.

No, it wasn't tried. Read my post again. If the US had followed my strategy, Vietnam would have been in ashes. It wasn't. That is why the Vietnamese continued to fight; they believed that they could win. Don't you understand? As long as the people have hope of victory, they will continue to fight. They will gladly sacrifice their lives for "the cause". This hope of victory is what drives martyrdom.

In order to win wars this hope must be crushed. The people must be made to understand that no matter what they do, no matter how hard they fight, or what sacrifices they make, they have no chance of victory. The only way to do this is by showing no mercy. Cities, towns, and villages must all be destroyed. The enemy must have no safe haven to hide in. They must live in constant fear. They must see everything they love destroyed or killed. They should see their once beautiful country turned into a wasteland. Surrender or annihilation are the only options they should have.

The problem now is that no one is willing to truly fight a real war. Its almost as though idealistic children are writing a feel good Disney movie, instead of planning and fighting a war. How pathetic. This idiotic desire to fight a "civilized" war is the reason why conflicts like Vietnam failed. Now Afghanistan and Iraq are failing for the same reason. This conflict will never end as long as we fight like this.

 

[umbrella39]

It's amazing how some people can make Bush look intelligent.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ZeboYou're one of the people who claim brutality turn civies against you. It's false. Not enough does but as you see from the story 2000 brutal men control a whole region of 10 million. (its virtually the same in all fundi countries) and was the same in Philippines with us. Today our fighting is a waste of time and money. We'll get real warriors once a couple pak nukes detonate in NY and LA.

I tend to agree. But when you say "real warriors" do you mean military personnel and a political administration that isn't afraid to kill "innocent" civilians who are tolerating and giving aid and comfort to the enemy in order to get to the enemy?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The Taliban must be slaughtered mercilessly for this madness to end. There is no other solution. Their will to fight must be broken, and the only way to accomplish that is to destroy them all. Every village that supports the Taliban must be destroyed. Not just bombed, but completely destroyed. Everyone must be killed. The Taliban must be put in a position where they have to choose between surrender or annihilation. Everyone knows this.

Wasn't that tried in Viet Nam?
Didn't work then .... won't work now.

No, it wasn't tried. Read my post again. If the US had followed my strategy, Vietnam would have been in ashes. It wasn't. That is why the Vietnamese continued to fight; they believed that they could win. Don't you understand? As long as the people have hope of victory, they will continue to fight. They will gladly sacrifice their lives for "the cause". This hope of victory is what drives martyrdom.

In order to win wars this hope must be crushed. The people must be made to understand that no matter what they do, no matter how hard they fight, or what sacrifices they make, they have no chance of victory. The only way to do this is by showing no mercy. Cities, towns, and villages must all be destroyed. The enemy must have no safe haven to hide in. They must live in constant fear. They must see everything they love destroyed or killed. They should see their once beautiful country turned into a wasteland. Surrender or annihilation are the only options they should have.

The problem now is that no one is willing to truly fight a real war. Its almost as though idealistic children are writing a feel good Disney movie, instead of planning and fighting a war. How pathetic. This idiotic desire to fight a "civilized" war is the reason why conflicts like Vietnam failed. Now Afghanistan and Iraq are failing for the same reason. This conflict will never end as long as we fight like this.

Author Michael Scheuer describes them as "half-fought wars" being orchestrated by pandering politicians thousands of miles from any front line. He goes on to explain how we've been doing so ever since the end of WWII -- Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Iraq II, etc etc...

The concept of overwhelming and unhindered force has been lost on the younger generations who are averse to personal sacrifice. This weakness has resulted in a populace who can not tolerate hearing about higher numbers of casualties on the evening news, so they rally and protest against anything that may spoil their evening lattes -- including the use of overwhelming force against a determined enemy. The West has grown soft and has been unwilling to do what's necessary to actually win any campaign in recent history.

Some believe that we'll be fighting the same enemies for a hundred years, or more, because of this crippling weakness. The really scary part as that some people view this trend as "progress"... toward what? I have no idea...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
My friends. On the afternoon of 9/11 I said that the proper response was a nuclear attack on Kabul and Bagdad. This was less that 2 hours after the attacks!

Now here we are, 7 years later, Trillions of dollars in debt, a President with horrible approvals, a new President who is still a green political amateur and what have we got?

Afghanistan and Iraq were never worth liberating. The proper response was a hideous display of US power. Massive death of Afghanis and Iraqis would have saved Americans a lot of pain and death and expense. Why do you idiots think we keep these nuclear weapons?

We made or bed now we have to lie in it.

I don?t want to hear you weak ass pussies whining when we have to do what I just described above, eventually.

It?s coming.

I don't have a big enough "rolls eyes" smilie for this kind of comment. It's really sad that we have citizens of this country that think like this.

Actually, Julius is half correct when he says that "The proper response [should have been] a hideous display of US power." Our response in 2001, in Afghanistan, should have been much more vicious than it was; and we should have never given the Taliban eight years to recover, resupply, train, and launch new attacks against the our forces -- from any location!

That said, he certainly goes off the deep end with the mention of nukes... especially his ridiculous inclusion of Baghdad in the mix.

Like I said, he's half correct...

I agree with you on Afghanistan, we had a chance to dedicate our efforts from the beginning to get rid of the Taliban and make a real change to the Afghani people, but blew it with diverting just about everything to Iraq.

But given that JS wanted to flat out nuke Kabul for no reason other then spite and chest thumping, I find it hard to give him any credit at all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Weakness is complicated. Strength is simple.

Spoken repeatedly like a truly brainwashed little sheep. Aw! How cute and fluffy you are!

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
My friends. On the afternoon of 9/11 I said that the proper response was a nuclear attack on Kabul and Bagdad. This was less that 2 hours after the attacks!

Now here we are, 7 years later, Trillions of dollars in debt, a President with horrible approvals, a new President who is still a green political amateur and what have we got?

Afghanistan and Iraq were never worth liberating. The proper response was a hideous display of US power. Massive death of Afghanis and Iraqis would have saved Americans a lot of pain and death and expense. Why do you idiots think we keep these nuclear weapons?

Anyone else see the irony in advocating the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians? In Iraq of all places? How well did that work for Saddam? And if that was a good reason for the US invasion of Iraq, who should bomb the US after we do the same thing?

Here's an idea, since there was a terrorist cell in Columbus, let's drop a nuke on Ohio too. Why do you idiots think we keep these nuclear weapons?

Or maybe we have keep these nuclear weapons for strategic reasons . It's one of the largest reasons why Israel hasn't been invaded by an Arab nation. It's the reason why the idea of a war between India and Pakistan is so frightening. It's why North Korea has been handled with kid gloves since 2006.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Author Michael Scheuer describes them as "half-fought wars" being orchestrated by pandering politicians thousands of miles from any front line. He goes on to explain how we've been doing so ever since the end of WWII -- Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Iraq II, etc etc...

The concept of overwhelming and unhindered force has been lost on the younger generations who are averse to personal sacrifice. This weakness has resulted in a populace who can not tolerate hearing about higher numbers of casualties on the evening news, so they rally and protest against anything that may spoil their evening lattes -- including the use of overwhelming force against a determined enemy. The West has grown soft and has been unwilling to do what's necessary to actually win any campaign in recent history.

Some believe that we'll be fighting the same enemies for a hundred years, or more, because of this crippling weakness. The really scary part as that some people view this trend as "progress"... toward what? I have no idea...

What book? I might want to read it.

But I think trying to lump all of our wars/actions together is painting with a broad brush. Wars (or police actions or whatever they get called) are fought for political reasons. So it stands to reason that the end game might not be what the military wants, but what the politicians want (or compromise on).

Vietnam was an example of trying to save a country that didn't want to be saved. The NV, for whatever reason, was willing to fight and die for as long as it took to take over SV. The SV didn't have that same determination. So unless we killed every single person in North Vietnam (which is just impossible), South Vietnam was doomed. After WWII, we helped Greece fight a guerrilla war against Albanian communists, and that worked, because the Greeks were willing to stand and fight. If the general population isn't going to back you, it's hopeless.

First Iraq war was a good example of "winning" I think. Using overwhelming force to get back Kuwait worked well. Most of Saddam's army equipment was destroyed (but not all). There was a clear mission and a clear end-game. We got in and out, with minimal loss of life or screwing up the whole region.

Iraq war 2 was the exact opposite. With no real mission, other then "get Saddam", we got sucked into a long term LIC with no real good end-game, or other way to get out. Add to that it imade Afghanistan the red-headed stepchild that got no resources, which didn't help.

Somalia was another case where you got mission creep and lack of political will to follow through on what was wanted. If you don't give the military the resources and ability (equipment and ROE) to do the job, get them the hell out, because you are just making it worse.

While I kind of agree with you on the personal sacrifice part, I think part of the problem with casualties is that there is no goal in site. In WWII, after Tarawa, which was a horrible bloodbath for the Marines, there were some complaints about the number of casualties. But lesson were learned on how to assault islands better, and more importantly, everyone knew that Tarawa meant we could get to Kwajalin, and then to Peleieu, then the Philippines, and then eventually Okinawa and Japan. Vietnam was a good example as well. "Taking" a hill in Vietnam meant nothing, since there were no real "front lines" to advance. You could assault the hill, kill anyone there, and then leave. Nowadays, there isn't a good way to show "progress" to winning like in other wars. Or to show that our soldiers today aren't just getting their lives thrown away for nothing.

And yes, part of the problem is people don't understand that wars aren't about "fair fights". There are about ambushes and not giving the other side a change to win at all.

edit: sorry for the long ramble

 

[Lemon law]

As usual, the logical flaw of palehorse and JOS is to accuse me of being a traitor for stating a fact, the Taliban is winning hearts and minds and Nato is not.

Given that fact is at least partially true, all logic would dictate that Nato alter its behavior to do better at winning hearts and minds , and rather that, they want to persist in the same failed policies
that have flopped for seven years. Palehorse and JOS, long on bluster and woefully short of results.

And of course the Julius Shark flaw in logic is to assume strength is simple and weakness is complex, in Afghanistan we are weak because we can't be strong everywhere. And since even a fairly weak organization can be strong in a few dynamically changing places, they too equally use the strong is simple doctrine. An insurgency is not a WW2 set piece battle where victory is defined by occupying an enemy capital.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As usual, the logical flaw of palehorse and JOS is to accuse me of being a traitor for stating a fact, the Taliban is winning hearts and minds and Nato is not.

Given that fact is at least partially true, all logic would dictate that Nato alter its behavior to do better at winning hearts and minds , and rather that, they want to persist in the same failed policies
that have flopped for seven years. Palehorse and JOS, long on bluster and woefully short of results.

And of course the Julius Shark flaw in logic is to assume strength is simple and weakness is complex, in Afghanistan we are weak because we can't be strong everywhere. And since even a fairly weak organization can be strong in a few dynamically changing places, they too equally use the strong is simple doctrine. An insurgency is not a WW2 set piece battle where victory is defined by occupying an enemy capital.

Where are you getting your info that the Taliban are winning the hearts and minds.

And is it by love of fear?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As usual, the logical flaw of palehorse and JOS is to accuse me of being a traitor for stating a fact, the Taliban is winning hearts and minds and Nato is not.

Given that fact is at least partially true, all logic would dictate that Nato alter its behavior to do better at winning hearts and minds , and rather that, they want to persist in the same failed policies
that have flopped for seven years. Palehorse and JOS, long on bluster and woefully short of results.

And of course the Julius Shark flaw in logic is to assume strength is simple and weakness is complex, in Afghanistan we are weak because we can't be strong everywhere. And since even a fairly weak organization can be strong in a few dynamically changing places, they too equally use the strong is simple doctrine. An insurgency is not a WW2 set piece battle where victory is defined by occupying an enemy capital.

Where are you getting your info that the Taliban are winning the hearts and minds.

And is it by love of fear?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The where I am getting my information that the Taliban is winning hearths and minds and Nato is not, is the intelligent question to ask.

And I personally base much of my answer on various Afghan statements and interviews, sometimes the press, but also human nature and historical readings.
That and the fact that the Taliban rose to power, because it was seen as a cure for
the same situation we have right now. That and the fact that the Taliban has free run of the country, something does not happen without some popular support

In nearly every Afghan and Pakistani link we find, Statements are made about attitude.

 

[gingermeggs]

whats with the red hair shit!