They Beheaded Him Too!!

[seany85]

"This is gonna be a long-lasting war."

I remember in 2001, just before the operation in Afghanistan was launched, a high ranking British Army officer saying that the war on terrorism could last upto 50 years.

As Sun-Tzu said "When doing battle, seek a quick victory.
A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.
If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.
When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.
Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare. "





Ps good luck m.artist





I agree with darrianation, it does seem strange.

[m.artist]

You know what the worst part is? I'm still shorter than most the kids. It aint that bad but its kind of amazing.

Anyways do you know what USMC stands for?

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

don't worry, im only 5'7

that is strange darrianation
never thought of that
conspiracy? maybe...
thx for the good luck
i believe george washington also said something similar about ending a war quickly as well. and yes, i do believe america will be fighting this for years to come, which is unfortunate. we have many good young boys growing up to be fine young men who all they're going to know is war.
it's a shame
but if it's for the right cause and purpose, then i will do my part
thx for the good luck too seany85

[darrianation]

Saudi Arabia maybe is next who knows for sure, but I think the monarchy has seen it’s last days. They have been in bed with the terrorists for a very long time. They are scared shitless of them but now the cat is out of the bag. They are scrambling about what to do now all this international attention is on them. Now they will have to decide which side of the fence their on.

The people of Saudi are seeing economic trouble that they haven't seen before and they are much more radical and U.S. haters than their government. I bet if they had an election today, Osama Bin laden would probably win. I would not be surprised at all if Saudi Arabia plunges into civil war in the next year or two.

As far as Iraq goes the Zuni and Shiites will continue to fight and plunge them into a civil war too that the U.S. will be mired in for a long time to come.

The rest of the region is unsecured and volatile as well and more and more zealots are willing to jump in against the west. This is a loose-loose situation.

[m.artist]

can we put a date on when this will end?
maybe a general date?
years? months? decades?

[seany85]

"Anyways did it ever occur to you that mabey just mabey military campaigns no matter how skilled they are are protracted (much of the time) because the enemy is fighting back? "


Yes, it did occur to me.

"We could just commit genocide and wipe them all out,"

Oh hell no, just the ones who create the problems.

"Prehaps you have a better idea than what we're doing?"

Maybe focusing on going after Bin Laden whos the main financial part of Al queda, and the brains, Abdullah Azzam. Instead of being concerened with entire countries.

Task Force 121, have been set out to find them.

Most intelligence analysts think bin Laden is still holed up in Pakistan’s treacherous border zone. An audio tape recording of bin Laden has proved that he was alive at least till late October, 2002.

A question? What would America do with Bin Laden if he is caught?
Execute him, and turn him into a mryter (sp)?
Imprisonment, and offend all the families victims off over the years?


Also any group that's even linked to them,


Egyptian Islamic Jihad;
Jamaat Islamiyya, also from Egypt;
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group;
the Islamic Army of Aden, in Yemen;
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, in Kashmir;
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan;
the Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group, both of Algeria;
Abu Sayyaf Group, in Malaysia and the Philippines.

What is the future of terrorism?
The trends point to decreasing frequency but increasing lethality of acts.

[bobby19]

"Maybe focusing on going after Bin Laden whos the main financial part of Al queda, and the brains, Abdullah Azzam. Instead of being concerened with entire countries.

Task Force 121, have been set out to find them.

Most intelligence analysts think bin Laden is still holed up in Pakistan’s treacherous border zone. An audio tape recording of bin Laden has proved that he was alive at least till late October, 2002.

A question? What would America do with Bin Laden if he is caught?
Execute him, and turn him into a mryter (sp)?
Imprisonment, and offend all the families victims off over the years?


Also any group that's even linked to them,


Egyptian Islamic Jihad;
Jamaat Islamiyya, also from Egypt;
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group;
the Islamic Army of Aden, in Yemen;
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, in Kashmir;
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan;
the Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group, both of Algeria;
Abu Sayyaf Group, in Malaysia and the Philippines."


Yes thats what the currently doing, but all the media attention is currently focused on the situation and probelms in and/or relating to Iraq.

If we did resort to geneocide, wouldnt that make us no better then what happened in Germany during the last years of the WWII and in Turkey in WWI?
Just a thought.

[m.artist]

"Maybe focusing on going after Bin Laden whos the main financial part of Al queda, and the brains, Abdullah Azzam. Instead of being concerened with entire countries.

Task Force 121, have been set out to find them.

Most intelligence analysts think bin Laden is still holed up in Pakistan’s treacherous border zone. An audio tape recording of bin Laden has proved that he was alive at least till late October, 2002.

A question? What would America do with Bin Laden if he is caught?
Execute him, and turn him into a mryter (sp)?
Imprisonment, and offend all the families victims off over the years?


Also any group that's even linked to them,


Egyptian Islamic Jihad;
Jamaat Islamiyya, also from Egypt;
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group;
the Islamic Army of Aden, in Yemen;
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, in Kashmir;
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan;
the Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group, both of Algeria;
Abu Sayyaf Group, in Malaysia and the Philippines."


Yes thats what the currently doing, but all the media attention is currently focused on the situation and probelms in and/or relating to Iraq.

If we did resort to geneocide, wouldnt that make us no better then what happened in Germany during the last years of the WWII and in Turkey in WWI?
Just a thought.

you have a point. but thinkof it this way.
what if we were to do what we did in wwII with japan. it was kind of a wake up call. we did not want to kill all of those people, but it had to be done in order to wake the people up correct?
and, as i understand it, a goo 90% of these terrorists are hiding in the deserts and forests and mountains where no civilians live anywhere near. so i think if those places where to be bombed, then we might feel a lil more secure with that desicion
imho o' course

[darrianation]

There a lot of simple answers here, for a very complex problem. I guess we should just kill em’ all and let God sort em’ out.

It’s very difficult to deal with terrorists especially on such a large scale as we are seeing. It is hard enough to contain indigenous terrorists within one’s own boarder let alone insurgencies. A handful of determined insurgence can wreak havoc, and keep a whole nation at bay. Like what we are seeing in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and many other areas of the region as well as Asia too. How many terrorists did it take to nearly bring the U.S. to its knees? What about 14 with some help from a few friends?

Carrying out clandestine terrorist attacks is far less complicated, cheap, and needs far less technology and manpower than it does to fight it. Not only does it take sophisticated technology, lots of money, specific intelligence, a lot of manpower and resources to fight terrorism, but fighting terrorism is further complicated by the fact there are so many self imposed experts and politicians who think it should be done their way it is hard to come to any bipartisan solution. Then no matter what you do, there will be a large portion of the world’s opinion against you. When loved ones, friends, and fellow citizens begin coming home in body bags you loose the domestic support as well.

Why do we have such a problem with terrorism in the first place? This is a complex problem as well. The short answer that no one is willing to talk about is a clash of cultures, globalization, and the global need of integration (financial, technological, and national/international resources).

The modern cultures are easily adaptable while some of the more primitive-fundamental/traditional cultures are more resistant. This has brought rise of Muslim radical fundamentalism like what we see in the form of the Taliban and terrorist organizations like what we see in Al-Qa'ida, the Fatah - Revolutionary Council and tanzim, Hamas, and Hizballa, and etc. Radical terrorist thrive in theses conditions. Muslims radicals’ and fundamentalists cry out to exclude and expel all non- Muslim. In there eyes if you are not Muslim you are an Infidel.

The problem is globalization; it’s coercive to many primitive cultures. The more fundamental the culture the more radical they may become when confronted by outside forces. This is what we are now seeing. Of course the west is in the forefront of this globalization European banks and U.S. business and corporations. As technology grows so does the need to tear down cultural boundaries and physical Borders.

It looks like its becoming Islam against the rest of the world. This is concerning for many reasons the least of which is that Islam is so big and has so many followers worldwide.

So now what do we do?

One simplistic look at which is actually our largest policy and it works in part, is to convince the terrorists and their sympathizers that their goals and methods are faulty and are not going to work. Or, by not allowing their aberrant actions to give them what they want. It’s the whole psycho-social condoning thing we see all the time, except just like with criminals here who suffer from anti social personality disorders it just doesn’t work very often. Truly fighting terrorism by counter terrorism alone will not work.

There are basically three ways to fight terrorism:

1) Not allowing them to achieve there goals
2) Destroy the radical Muslims
3) Modernize the Islamic world

These three split the Islamic world, especially 2&3. Many fundamentalist and traditionalists do not want to change. Coercing them to do so throws more fuel on the flames, the more we force, The more they resist, the more they resist the more troops we send the more innocents who die, and the more innocents that die, the more the people (muslins) identify and become empathetic towards the radical Islamic cause. Good example is the Palestinians. Throw into the mix other social-economics situations and you have a breeding ground for terrorists. It gives them a cause to fight for, so they can feel empowered and forget their disposition.

[Tom Yum]

Yes we should go after terrorists but there are countries who funds, aids, abets, and protects terrorists from US. Afghanistan was an example of this and Omar refused to turn Bin Laden over to us. He was working hand in hand with the terrorists.

What if US money indirectly funds terrorists?

[krys]

you have a point. but thinkof it this way.
what if we were to do what we did in wwII with japan. it was kind of a wake up call. we did not want to kill all of those people, but it had to be done in order to wake the people up correct?

This is of really really poor taste.... exactly what terrorists are thinking

[m.artist]

ok well just so you know, the killed the south korean man too

for those of you who can't stand micheal moore(that big fat guy who tells lie after lie and backs it up with more lies)
here's an artical bashing him
*sighs*
i love a good "i hate micheal moore" story

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

[darrianation]

ok well just so you know, the killed the south korean man too

for those of you who can't stand micheal moore(that big fat guy who tells lie after lie and backs it up with more lies)
here's an artical bashing him
*sighs*
i love a good "i hate micheal moore" story
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

The problem with the far left like MR. Moore is their words are often treasonous. Not always in the legal sense but in the moral sense. They are always decrying the wrongs with America while sympathizing with the evil doers. They most always take the side of the rapist plundering murderers wherever they may be.

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy". Ann Coulter

[m.artist]

The problem with the far left like MR. Moore is their words are often treasonous. Not always in the legal sense but in the moral sense. They are always decrying the wrongs with America while sympathizing with the evil doers. They most always take the side of the rapist plundering murderers wherever they may be.

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy". Ann Coulter

ain't it the truth

[darrianation]

As I stated before there are three ways of combating terrorism

1) Destroy them- This means by killing the terrorists, but it also means dismantling their chain of command, Hunting them down especially in places where they feel safe and killing them and their leaders. Destroying their support through Psy-ops, deception, and interrupting their financial support by freezing their accounts arresting money launderers, and etc.

2) Not allowing any positive results from their abominable actions- Do not cave in to their coercion, to their murder, or demands.

3) Modernize them- Many different modalities go into this such as making them wealthier, giving them more conveniences, more education, which leads to better jobs, better medical care, Women’s rights and human rights, this gives them less reason to support the radicals. Of course this has its own consequences on society, and culture.


Failues come from political correctness and lack of resolve which is a backflash of public oppinion.

Remember the differences, when we go to war against them we target the bad guys and their infrastructure, and it’s true that innocence will be unintentionally killed. However in stark contrast they intentionally target the innocent as a means of increasing the terror effect.

[m.artist]

As I stated before there are three ways of combating terrorism

1) Destroy them- This means by killing the terrorists, but it also means dismantling their chain of command, Hunting them down especially in places where they feel safe and killing them and their leaders. Destroying their support through Psy-ops, deception, and interrupting their financial support by freezing their accounts arresting money launderers, and etc.

2) Not allowing any positive results from their abominable actions- Do not cave in to their coercion, to their murder, or demands.

3) Modernize them- Many different modalities go into this such as making them wealthier, giving them more conveniences, more education, which leads to better jobs, better medical care, Women’s rights and human rights, this gives them less reason to support the radicals. Of course this has its own consequences on society, and culture.


Failues come from political correctness and lack of resolve which is a backflash of public oppinion.

Remember the differences, when we go to war against them we target the bad guys and their infrastructure, and it’s true that innocence will be unintentionally killed. However in stark contrast they intentionally target the innocent as a means of increasing the terror effect.

i agree with that idea completely, however, i have 2 questions
1. what are psy-ops?
2. they don't want womens rights. that's something only "barbarians" would do(that's one reason they dont like us, remember? why would we give that to them, if all it does is piss them off more?)