Are we at war with Islam? - Page 45

**Team Sergeant** · 08-14-2006, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk27

Yes and it appears that because AQ leadership played too much of a central role the plot was broken up. They have and will learn from these mistakes. Cells will continue more and more to be homegrown and self-organizing, inspired by bin Laden’s movement but not under its control.

What state actively sponsors AQ? The Iranian’s support Hezbollah as do the Syrians (some would say that after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon ’04 they lost influence to restrain Hez and this explains Hezbollah’s recent belligerence), Libya cut ties with terrorists for foreign investment, and Saddam supported Hamas but not AQ.

Refusing to distinguish between AQ and Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups only benefit them. It does them the benefit of aggregating them all together, this allows them to constitute themselves as a global jihad and only validates this to the Islamic world. This is inherently counterproductive to any wise strategy designed to disaggregate a global insurgency. (See LTC. Killcullen’s Countering Global Insurgency)

I have in PDF (too big to attach) James Fallows recent article in The Atlantic, We Win.: A New Strategy For The Fight Against Terror. It is very thought provoking and I think a good assessment of where we are and where we are headed. It draws from Brian Michael Jenkins at RAND (I believe a QP also), LTC Killcullen, Michael Scheuer, Peter Bergen, Martin van Crevald, Bruce Hoffman, Daniel Benjamin, and James Woosley among others. I would be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it. I could make a summary of it as well as find a host for it if there is interest for a thread.

TK27 and Solid,

I've had enough..... this discussion will not be led by two 20 year old's that have read one Rand paper on terrorism and think it's the answer to global terrorism.

There are men on this board that have not only hunted and killed these terrorist cowards but have also written doctrine on how to fight the global war on terrorism. I defer to their thoughts on the subject and not to two kids that have never traveled any further than the raisins in their cereal bowls.

I am no longer interested in your opinions as they do not hold water, your open source information is lacking in depth and history. We've also answered many of the questions you seem to continue to post.

Tell you what after you've spent a decade or so hunting the terrorist cowards you can again post on this subject, or when you get your PhD in political science or middle eastern affairs. Until then you are both done on this thread.

You may still ask questions, period.

Team Sergeant

Tired of the sheeple telling the hunters how to capture or kill the wolf.

edit to add:

Oh and one more thing to put some of what you both have posted in perspective;

While serving in Desert Storm we found out that saddam and his coward armies were placing explosives on the oil wells and were going to blow them in the event of hostilities.

I remember reading a very authoritative think-tank “paper” stating that if saddam were allowed to blow those oil wells (about 600) that it would take decades to put them out and that it would be the beginning of the end of the world as we knew it.

Red Adair and his men put out the fires in a few months.

I don’t put much credence in think-tank papers written by those that have never actually met or have any experience with the beast they often write about.

tk27 · 08-14-2006, 17:31

Understood TS.

Richard · 08-18-2006, 07:07

Here's something to think about.

www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Richard

Black Beard · 08-23-2006, 18:07

Got a question about our foreign policy and "America's" war against terrorism. Will you entertain? Sounds like you speak from much experience and would like to get your take on some things. Thanks

**Team Sergeant** · 08-23-2006, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Beard

Got a question about our foreign policy and "America's" war against terrorism. Will you entertain? Sounds like you speak from much experience and would like to get your take on some things. Thanks

Ask away.... there are people on here that know more about foreign policy than I.

I just spent 20 years "enforcing" American policy on an international level.....

TS

Black Beard · 08-24-2006, 18:22

Not to get into politics, but want to know first, in your opinion; do you agree with how our government has waged the war against terrorism? (If you don't mind I would rather go one question at a time, these conversations tend to get involved.) Let's just start from 9-11-01 and the Trade Towers. Remember Pres. Bush's speech shortly after that, and what he said we were going to do? (okay 2 questions) Thanks!

**Team Sergeant** · 08-26-2006, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Beard

Not to get into politics, but want to know first, in your opinion; do you agree with how our government has waged the war against terrorism? (If you don't mind I would rather go one question at a time, these conversations tend to get involved.) Let's just start from 9-11-01 and the Trade Towers. Remember Pres. Bush's speech shortly after that, and what he said we were going to do? (okay 2 questions) Thanks!

First off terrorism didn’t start Sept 11th 2001 so we cannot start there. The terrorist cowards that planned that attack were well known to the United States intelligence services, the United States military and current and former presidents of the United States.

2nd we change governments every 4 to 8 years, sure most laws stay the same but make no mistake when a coward sits in the most powerful position in the world soliciting oral sex from young girls, it sends a “national” level message to the world. (Review your history and you might come to realize what message "jimmy "coward" carter" sent the world by allowing a terrorist country to hold American hostages for over a year.)

3rd referring back to the 2nd paragraph how the United States prosecutes the war on terrorism also changes dramatically every 4-8 years and the very reason "known" terrorists were permitted to perpetrate the attack on 9/11.

4th when dealing with aggressive moslem tribes with the collective intelligence of a colony of dust mites one should not wonder why diplomacy does not always work. (i.e. the current situation in iran and its demented leader)

Couple that with an ideology of islamic world supremacy, zero tolerance for "unbelievers" and a level of hate for westerners that far exceeds their love for their own children (i.e. placing bombs on their own children only to blow themselves up in a crowd) should show we have cultivated a group (millions) that actually believe they could defeat western ideology.

Yes "we" cultivated a faction that knows every few years the United States will not pursue their leaders, will not gather intelligence concerning their world wide activities, will not send Americas military warriors to fight them. But, will, send food and comfort whenever the media parades their children dying of hunger while their dust mite intelligent tribes wage fierce turf battles in some 5th world country like an army of ants, not caring that it is their children that suffer.

We've been waging this war for decades, centuries, no, we've been waging this war for over a millennia. All we’ve done is change the names of the players and upgraded the weapons systems.

There is no comprehensive answer. We have no longer have a nation with intestinal fortitude.

It’s not going to end in our lifetime.

So long as there are men there will be wars.
Albert Einstein

Team Sergeant

7624U · 08-26-2006, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Couple that with an ideology of islamic world supremacy, zero tolerance for "unbelievers" and a level of hate for westerners that far exceeds their love for their own children (i.e. placing bombs on their own children only to blow themselves up in a crowd) should show we have cultivated a group (millions) that actually believe they could defeat western ideology.

We've been waging this war for decades, centuries, no, we've been waging this war for over a millennia. All we’ve done is change the names of the players and upgraded the weapons systems.

Team Sergeant

+1

For anyone that has doubt first read the Qur'an in english at this link
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/HolKora.html

Here is just a chapter for someone that is to lazy to look

"Muhammad"

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

"47.1": (As for) those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, He shall render their works ineffective.

"47.2": And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.

"47.3": That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord; thus does Allah set forth to men their examples.

"47.4": So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

"47.5": He will guide them and improve their condition.

"47.6": And cause them to enter the garden which He has made known to them.

"47.7": O you who believe ! if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet.

"47.8": And (as for) those who disbelieve, for them is destruction and He has made their deeds ineffective.

"47.9": That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so He rendered their deeds null.

"47.10": Have they not then journeyed in the land and seen how was the end of those before them: Allah brought down destruction upon them, and the unbelievers shall have the like of it.

"47.11": That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them.

"47.12": Surely Allah will make those who believe and do good enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat, and the fire is their abode.

"47.13": And how many a town which was far more powerful than the town of yours which has driven you out: We destroyed them so there was no helper for them.

"47.14": What! is he who has a clear argument from his Lord like him to whom the evil of his work is made fairseeming: and they follow their low desires.

"47.15": A parable of the garden which those guarding (against evil) are promised: Therein are rivers of water that does not alter, and rivers of milk the taste whereof does not change, and rivers of drink delicious to those who drink, and rivers of honey clarified and for them therein are all fruits and protection from their Lord. (Are these) like those who abide in the fire and who are made to drink boiling water so it rends their bowels asunder.

"47.16": And there are those of them who seek to listen to you, until when they go forth from you, they say to those who have been given the knowledge: What was it that he said just now? These are they upon whose hearts Allah has set a seal and they follow their low desires.

"47.17": And (as for) those who follow the right direction, He increases them in guidance and gives them their guarding (against evil).

"47.18": Do they then wait for aught but the hour that it should come to them all of a sudden? Now indeed the tokens of it have (already) come, but how shall they have their reminder when it comes on them?

"47.19": So know that there is no god but Allah, and, ask protection for your fault and for the believing men and the believing women; and Allah knows the place of your returning and the place of your abiding.

"47.20": And those who believe say: Why has not a chapter been revealed? But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!

"47.21": Obedience and a gentle word (was proper); but when the affair becomes settled, then if they remain true to Allah it would certainly be better for them.

"47.22": But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!

"47.23": Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes.

"47.24": Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Nay, on the hearts there are locks.

"47.25": Surely (as for) those who return on their backs after that guidance has become manifest to them, the Shaitan has made it a light matter to them; and He gives them respite.

"47.26": That is because they say to those who hate what Allah has revealed: We will obey you in some of the affairs; and Allah knows their secrets.

"47.27": But how will it be when the angels cause them to die smiting their backs.

"47.28": That is because they follow what is displeasing to Allah and are averse to His pleasure, therefore He has made null their deeds.

"47.29": Or do those in whose hearts is a disease think that Allah will not bring forth their spite?

"47.30": And if We please We would have made you know them so that you would certainly have recognized them by their marks and most certainly you can recognize them by the intent of (their) speech; and Allah knows your deeds.

"47.31": And most certainly We will try you until We have known those among you who exert themselves hard, and the patient, and made your case manifest.

"47.32": Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way and oppose the Apostle after that guidance has become clear to them cannot harm Allah in any way, and He will make null their deeds.

"47.33": O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and do not make your deeds of no effect.

"47.34": Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

"47.35": And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.

"47.36": The life of this world is only idle sport and play, and if you believe and guard (against evil) He will give you your rewards, and will not ask of you your possessions.

"47.37": If He should ask you for it and urge you, you will be niggardly, and He will bring forth your malice.

"47.38": Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you.

Take it for what its worth but when someone takes a ideology any ideology not just Muslem
to the extreme you have what we have now a struggle for souls, and Minds.
To many people crowded together, someone is going to fight.

Gypsy · 08-26-2006, 18:03

Wasn't sure if I should post this link in the Literary section instead, since sometimes movies are mentioned. Please move if appropriate.

Haven't seen this yet, but a friend has ordered the pre-release video and promised to pass it along after viewing. Based on the reviews and trailer I thought some here might like to see this.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/eventlist.php

Quote:

Today, WWIII is raging, but few are aware of it.
War has been declared by Radical Islam against the West, but much of the the West, like Chamberlain did in his time, tends to discount the threat, choosing instead to appease it. Today, even those with courage enough to recognize the conflict, fear to identify the enemy, instead calling it a 'war on terror', as if terror—a means of battle, not an enemy—and not some specific group of people, was the foe.

Oh, and check out the Timeline link and the Resources sections.

NousDefionsDoc · 08-26-2006, 18:24

WWIV. WWIII was already fought - we won.

Black Beard · 08-27-2006, 16:02

I only know what I see and hear, and try to decipher between what's propaganda and what's not. If, in fact, we are fighting this war on terrorism effectively why have we backed off in so many corners of the world, (or do I just not hear about what's going on)? I would like to believe that we are still doing something about Abu-Saef in the Phillipines. Just one example, there are so many more, and I realize you gentlemen have gone over them. President Bush stated that we would fight this to every corner of the world and it just seems we as a country have eased up in so many areas! Afgahnistan seems to be building up again, according to popular political opinion, and why do we consider Pakistan an ally when the country is cleary infested with and sending these terrorists, in masses, over the border to fight us? Are we lacking manpower in the military so much that we can't afford to fight them the way we should, or is it all political bureaucracy that's preventing it? Again these are only a few examples, and I may be way off course, but it seems we let these countries dictate to us if we stay or go, and how we cannot fight this the way we should! Credit, and God Bless you all who read this and have been fighting against these terrorists for so long. I don't want to get slammed, so if i'm way off course just let me know, (as I know you will). I really just want some type of understanding as to why it at least looks as if we let them push us around, (in most cases). Should we not finally have a "no-tolerance" policy with these KILLERS!!! This is why i'm joining again at 35 yrs. old, and I would like the confidence that in SF our Gov. will allow us to fight this war effectively and where and how we should. Please help me understand, not the terrorist mentality but possibly the American Government's also. Thank you all! BB

**The Reaper** · 08-27-2006, 16:42

Musharraf in Pakistan is walking a very fine line trying to support us.

The majority of his own citizens would prefer that we be ejected from Pakistan, receive no support, and in fact, that the government fully and openly support the Taliban.

Cooperating with us is very unpopular there.

TR

Black Beard · 08-27-2006, 18:10

I heard a couple years ago that there are, or were, attempts on Musharraf's life a couple times a week on average. Seems like the infidels have him by the balls, and he can't really make too many moves to help the sit. So with Pakistan, we are trying to make a difference diplomatically-am I correct? If they're literally breeding so many terrorists over there shouldn't we make it priority to do militarily? (FID taking place?) Maybe our Government thinks, or wants us to think we're fighting them by stomping them out at the borders, (in the mountains), in Afgahnistan. It just seems like we are really backing off on operations over there. Like I said before, maybe I just don't know what's going on, but I'd like to think that much has been obvious. We are suppose to be turning a lot of the responsibility over to NATO in the near future, and I just don't understand. Hate to see our soldiers die over there on those past "special missions" that seemed to be making a big diff. at the time, and now we're letting up before the job is done. Taliban and AQ still getting stronger in those parts-true or not?? That's where we went first, then left for Iraq before we really "WON". Just don't understand, seems awful political to me. Thanks for the reply Sir! BB

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 08-27-2006, 18:58

[QUOTE=Black Beard] So with Pakistan, we are trying to make a difference diplomatically-am I correct? If they're literally breeding so many terrorists over there shouldn't we make it priority to do militarily? (FID taking place?) Maybe our Government thinks, or wants us to think we're fighting them by stomping them out at the borders, (in the mountains), in Afgahnistan. It just seems like we are really backing off on operations over there.

Okay, let's define the effort. First we are not fighting a global war on terrorism, regardless of what folks are labeling it ,we are fight Islamic Fundamentalists who use terrorism, among many other techniques, to attempt to co-opt their own religion in order to build their base of support. There are more elements of national power than diplomacy and military that can and are being used to support our national interest in defeating/controlling islamic fundamentalism. You mention FID-in FID the military plays a supporting role not a dominant role and in order for FID to be effective the country in which we are supporting with FID has to take the actions necessary to resolve the problems that are contributing to the growth and support of the fundamentalists that are conducting the terror campaigns both against us and their secular brethern. In order for that to happen we have to help shore up those governments with whatever means we can so that they can gain legitmacy with their own people and solve their own problems with the appropriate measures that fit their culture and needs which may or may not coincide with what we see as appropriate to the way we view things. Islamic Fundamentalists are not the only problem with which we are dealing that require military resources and there are many actions on going world wide that take folks from the visible theather of operations in SWA. Your desire to see things come to a speedy conclusion is understandable but not realistic, you cannot just kill them all and let Allah sort them out, this is an insurgency that has been growing for decades and it is going to take many years to resolve the problems that allowed it to foment and it has to be solved within Islam. This is an very simplistic view of a complicated situation and this topic really has been heavily addressed already.

**The Reaper** · 08-27-2006, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Beard

I heard a couple years ago that there are, or were, attempts on Musharraf's life a couple times a week on average. Seems like the infidels have him by the balls, and he can't really make too many moves to help the sit. So with Pakistan, we are trying to make a difference diplomatically-am I correct? If they're literally breeding so many terrorists over there shouldn't we make it priority to do militarily? (FID taking place?) Maybe our Government thinks, or wants us to think we're fighting them by stomping them out at the borders, (in the mountains), in Afgahnistan. It just seems like we are really backing off on operations over there. Like I said before, maybe I just don't know what's going on, but I'd like to think that much has been obvious. We are suppose to be turning a lot of the responsibility over to NATO in the near future, and I just don't understand. Hate to see our soldiers die over there on those past "special missions" that seemed to be making a big diff. at the time, and now we're letting up before the job is done. Taliban and AQ still getting stronger in those parts-true or not?? That's where we went first, then left for Iraq before we really "WON". Just don't understand, seems awful political to me. Thanks for the reply Sir! BB

You need to do a lot more reading on insurgencies and Islamic extremism, get a broader perspective in your news and current events reading and work on your analytical process/critical thinking.

Musharraf is doing a far better job, IMHO, than anyone likely to replace him.

TR