[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Please ask yourself the same questions about winning the war in Iraq.

My ideas are quite ordinary. But then again I'm not continually bashing the conduct of the WoT.

My belief is that if you have a better idea then don't keep it to yourself.

If you don't have a better idea, then support the plan being employed.

And if you don't have a better idea and you can't support the current program, then STFU.

Apparently, because there are so many bashers here I figured they might have some valuable suggestions to make. And if they don't then maybe they should just pipe down if they haven't any better strategies than the ones being employed.

Are you saying that you believe a totally defensive strategy will keep us safe? Or that we should do nothing in order to achieve safety?

What evidence is there to support that belief?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

Plus I don't believe a word of the Islamic Jihadist World Conquest™, after watching a nice Frontline about Saudi Arabia I believe the problem is western culture vs their culture. As I see it once we leave them alone they will do the same, most of those interviewed in the show (clerics, Princes, etc) respect America and its wealth and power, but believe it will kill their way of life.

This is from a PBS Frontline website (where you can watch the show for free).

frontline: al qaeda's new front: special reports: the salafist movement | PBS

An examination of the ideology that has inspired the global jihad and the emergence of its most dangerous incarnation.

When Gilles Kepel was researching a book about the origins of the global jihad movement back in the 1980s, he recalls rarely coming across Muslim fundamentalists known as "Salafists" living in Europe. "The ones who were prevalent … were totally apolitical and they didn't deliver theoretically or in terms of doctrine," he says.

Salafism is an ideology that posits that Islam has strayed from its origins. The word "salaf" is Arabic for "ancient one" and refers to the companions of the Prophet Mohammed. Arguing that the faith has become decadent over the centuries, Salafists call for the restoration of authentic Islam as expressed by an adherence to its original teachings and texts. "Salafists originally are supposedly not violent," Kepel explains. "They are not advocating the revolt against one who holds power, against the powers that be. They are calling for re-Islamization at the daily level."

By the mid-'90s, Kepel saw an alarming change among Europe's Muslims. Increasingly he was coming across Salafists who had embraced jihad -- in other words, who felt violence and terrorism were justified to realize their political objectives. Kepel explains that when Salafists, who tend to be alienated from mainstream European society, meet and mingle with jihadists, it fuses into a volatile mixture. "When you're in the state of such alienation you become easy prey to the jihadi guys who will feed you more savory propaganda than the old propaganda of the Salafists who tell you to pray, fast and who are not taking action," he says. "And this is why the [Islamist terrorists] who had been arrested were often good Salafists in the beginning."

Kepel labeled these Muslim fundamentalists "Salafist jihadists", a term that he extends to include the followers of Al Qaeda. Salafist jihadists are now a burgeoning presence in Europe, having attempted more than 30 terrorist attacks among E.U. countries since 2001.

While European counterterrorism experts recognize that Salafist jihadism is an ideological movement with deep religious and historical roots, they feel that their counterparts at the FBI and American intelligence agencies don't share this understanding. "I began using the word Salafi and Salafists in 1997 in meetings in Washington and nobody raised the word and asked what does it mean," says Xavier Raufer, a Paris-based expert on Islamic terrorism who has close ties to France's intelligence community. "And I used it and wrote it many times, and the first response they had was when Ahmed Ressam [who planned to attack Los Angeles International airport] was arrested in1999. I had a friend in Washington who called me and said, 'What is that word you were using, "Salafist?"' They didn't know that such a thing existed."

Despite having superior computers, many of us are still at the level of understanding that we were in 1999. What was that, the G-3 era?

1986

Bin Laden Sets Up Camp, Builds Ties

Bin Laden establishes Al Masadah ("The Lion's Den"), a training camp for Persian Gulf Arabs. Bin Laden begins associating with Egyptian radicals -- who, unlike Sheik Abdullah Azzam, advocate a global jihad beyond Afghanistan -- and befriends Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

Global Jihad's Most Dangerous Incarnation
The London Transit bombings one year ago opened Europe's eyes to the threat from disenfranchised Muslims taking up the cause of jihad - in particular, the ideology of Salafism. Explore it here, in FRONTLINE's report, "Al Qaeda's New Front." http://www.flworld.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50055

GLOBAL JIHAD
Saudi cleric sees U.S. collapsing, Muslim victory
Al-Jazeera broadcasts remarks on upcoming 'battle' with 'enemies of Allah'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In a lecture that touched on the meaning of jihad, a leading Saudi cleric declared the United States is collapsing and Muslims must patiently await their ultimate victory.

Sheik Nasser bin Suleiman Al-Omar said in remarks broadcast on the Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera April 19, "The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of jihad," according to the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Referring to sacred Muslim writings that accompany the Quran, the sheik said, "Whoever is familiar with the Sunna and the Hadith knows that a battle against the enemies of Allah awaits on the horizon, in which the Muslims will be victorious. This is confirmed by the reliable hadiths, as well as by reality."

Jihad is now taking place in Afghanistan, "Palestine," Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and the Philippines, he said.

Meanwhile, the sheik asserted to his audience, love for America is "now disappearing from the hearts, within America itself and elsewhere, whereas Islam is growing even within America, my brothers."

"Islam is making steady progress in America," Al-Omar said. "Twenty-five thousand people have converted to Islam every year since 9-11, and an even larger figure was mentioned in the New York Times."

The sheik cited a report "submitted by the American intelligence to the American officials, regarding the religion of Islam, which some think is defeated or weak today," saying Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and Muslims soon will become one-third of the world's population.

He quoted a "U.S. Congressman John Morlan" – there is no representative by that name – who supposedly said: "The 21st century is the century of Islam, which will offer an opportunity for peace in the world."

The sheik added: "There is no doubt that it is Islam that will bring peace, and not the U.N., America, Russia, or anyone else."

Interviewed for a PBS "Frontline" documentary on the House of Saud in December 2004, Al-Omar opposed the rewriting of Saudi religious textbooks to eliminate anti-Western, anti-Jewish teachings, and he was one of 26 prominent Saudi clerics who signed a fatwa saying Iraqis should rise up and oppose the Americans in Iraq.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mojo2

With Osama running and hiding for his life what do you think his contribution is to global terrorism? When FDR died in the last days of WWII the war continued.

Are you asking how things would have proceeded if Germany had been able to capture or assassinate FDR?

More relevant though, is OBL's contribution to global terrorism. Which, at this point, is acting as living proof that one can effectively elude the greatest nation in the world for years despite being responsible for the mass murder of thousands of that nation's citizens.

Originally Posted by mojo2

What makes you think capturing or killing OBL would stop Islamic jihadism?

You get a "wag of the finger" for posing a false dilemma. Capturing or killing (capturing is obviously way better) OBL does not need to stop Islamic jihadism to be a valid and useful goal.

That you would even ask the question implies that you could somehow think that there is one singular action that could stop Islamic jihadism cold.

I find that highly unlikely, but am certainly all ears.

Originally Posted by mojo2

And I'll pose the question, this time to you, what amount of time and how much $$ will it cost to wean ourselves from M.E. oil?

Excellent question.

As it's been brought up numerous times, would you be interested in having me start a new thread on it? I will, of course, answer here if you want, but it seems a large and complex enough issue that despite the fact you're requesting it, I'd still feel like I was threadjacking.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And i'll ask you, do you think a purely defensive effort will protect Democracy, or democracies or the peoples of free nations from Islamic jihad?

Yes.

And I'll ask you which Democracy did NOT survive Islamic Jihad in the last 40 years?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by subego

Are you asking how things would have proceeded if Germany had been able to capture or assassinate FDR?

More relevant though, is OBL's contribution to global terrorism. Which, at this point, is acting as living proof that one can effectively elude the greatest nation in the world for years despite being responsible for the mass murder of thousands of that nation's citizens.

You get a "wag of the finger" for posing a false dilemma. Capturing or killing (capturing is obviously way better) OBL does not need to stop Islamic jihadism to be a valid and useful goal.

That you would even ask the question implies that you could somehow think that there is one singular action that could stop Islamic jihadism cold.

I find that highly unlikely, but am certainly all ears.

Excellent question.

As it's been brought up numerous times, would you be interested in having me start a new thread on it? I will, of course, answer here if you want, but it seems a large and complex enough issue that despite the fact you're requesting it, I'd still feel like I was threadjacking.

I think we agree that terrorism would continue beyond OBL's death or capture and each possibility would pose different problems, but the bottom line is that no matter what we did there'd likely be increased attacks, whether to retaliate for his death or to free him from captivity. I should think our people would try to capture him if they have ANY chance to do so in order to debrief him.

Thanks for your consideration.

Please, I would enjoy participating in a thread you'd open devoted to the subject of how to wean ourselves from oil!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by badidea

Yes.

And I'll ask you which Democracy did NOT survive Islamic Jihad in the last 40 years?

Well, when put that way I'll have to say that I can't really name one. I'll have to use my cheat sheet.

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and...

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World

From this helpful list the only three can I point to off the top of my head and say they've been taken over or suffered a near collapse due to Islamic jihad are Algeria, Somalia and Lebanon. But how many is too many for us to be concerned with or take to represent a sufficient indication of the intent and pattern?

I invite others to jump in here and let us know if there are other countries that should be mentioned when considering badidea's question:

...which Democracy did NOT survive Islamic Jihad in the last 40 years?

[mojo2]

I suppose the following might be my suggestions. Pardon the fact that they are not "mine.' Like I said, my ideas are pretty boring.

These are pretty interesting!

"When Devils Walk the Earth"-(A MUST READ article on how to deal with Terrorism)

"When Devils Walk the Earth"-(A MUST READ article on how to deal with Terrorism)
Ralph Peters' book by way of the JPFO ^ | 2004 | Ralph Peters

Posted on 04/27/2004 4:17:57 PM PDT by redrock

Note: Received this from an Army friend.... Pay particular attention to item 13!
========================

HELLO TO ALL:
This essay is extracted from Ralph Peters' new book, "When Devils Walk the Earth." It is a must-read. The man is prescient. If you focus on nothing else, peruse the last point; Number 25. I added the "bold" and red color to points I thought ought to receive major emphasis.......Ed
(Ed is Major General, USA, Ret, Ed Browne)

Chapter III. Fighting Terror: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower:

If you want to download the PDF of this analysis click "control" and the link simultaneously and choose, "Download the linked file"

Results 1 - 30 of about 1,150,000 for when devils walk the earth pdf. (0.33 seconds)
[PDF] WHEN DEVILS WALK THE EARTH
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
WHEN DEVILS WALK THE EARTH. The Mentality and Roots of Terrorism, and How to Respond. by Ralph Peters. Note: This analysis is divided into three parts. ...
www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ usmc/ceto/when_devils_walk_the_earth.pdf - Similar pages

[badidea]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Algeria, Somalia and Lebanon.

Algeria:
- still a Democracy
- almost 100% are muslims
- and since muslims tend to like the jihad, I'd have to say that if the majority wants it then they should get it - that's democracy!!

Somalia:
- Yes, a huge problem right now - they seem to get taken over by Islamists
- but Somalia wasn't a democracy - they don't even have a real government right now!

Lebanon:
- still a Democracy
- 60% muslims - they seem to want it!


Any western, christian Democracy??

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by badidea

Algeria:
- still a Democracy
- almost 100% are muslims
- and since muslims tend to like the jihad, I'd have to say that if the majority wants it then they should get it - that's democracy!!

Somalia:
- Yes, a huge problem right now - they seem to get taken over by Islamists
- but Somalia wasn't a democracy - they don't even have a real government right now!

Lebanon:
- still a Democracy
- 60% muslims - they seem to want it!


Any western, christian Democracy??

In you enthusiasm to make your point did you inadvertently fail to mention Algeria's harrowing struggle against Islam? Or was the omission intentional? And I am resisting the obvious conclusion that you would ask that I find a western, christian democracy because you didn't think these countries counted or were important.

We loved Germany when Germans weren't very lovable. Spread the love, man.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Algerian Civil War

The Algerian Civil War was an armed conflict between the Algerian government and various Islamist rebel groups which began in 1991. It is estimated to have cost over 150,000 lives. The conflict effectively ended with a government victory, following the surrender of the Islamic Salvation Army and the 2002 defeat of the Armed Islamic Group. However, low-level fighting still continues in some areas.

The conflict began in December 1991, when the government cancelled elections after the first round results had shown that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) party would win, citing fears that the FIS would end democracy. After the FIS was banned and thousands of its members arrested, Islamist guerrillas rapidly emerged and began an armed campaign against the government and its supporters. They formed themselves into several armed groups, principally the Islamic Armed Movement (MIA), based in the mountains, and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), based in the towns. The guerrillas initially targeted the army and police, but some groups soon started attacking civilians. In 1994, as negotiations between the government and the FIS's imprisoned leadership reached their height, the GIA declared war on the FIS and its supporters, while the MIA and various smaller groups regrouped, becoming the FIS-loyalist Islamic Salvation Army (AIS).

Soon after, the talks collapsed, and new elections were held—won by the army's candidate, General Liamine Zéroual. Conflict between the GIA and AIS intensified. Over the next few years, the GIA began a series of massacres targeting entire neighborhoods or villages; some evidence also suggests the involvement of government forces. These massacres peaked in 1997 around the parliamentary elections, which were won by a newly created pro-Army party, the National Democratic Rally (RND).

The AIS, under attack from both sides, opted for a unilateral ceasefire with the government in 1997, while the GIA was torn apart by splits as various subdivisions objected to its new massacre policy. In 1999, following the election of a new president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, a new law gave amnesty to most guerrillas, motivating large numbers to "repent" (as it was termed) and return to normal life. The violence declined substantially, with effective victory for the government. The remnants of the GIA proper were hunted down over the next two years, and had practically disappeared by 2002.

However, a splinter group of the GIA, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), which was initially formed in 1998 to dissociate itself from the massacres by the GIA, rejects the amnesty and continues to fight. Despite its former repudiation of attacking non-combatants, the Al-Qaeda linked group "...eventually returned to killing civilians" [4]. While, as of 2006, its comparatively sparse activities are the only remaining fighting in Algeria, a complete end to the violence is not yet in sight.

Algerian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 01, 2005

Algerian Rebels Said to Reject Amnesty

The jihad, it is not something one gives up lightly. But American policymakers still seem to think they can buy off jihadists with money, or concessions, or hearts-and-minds initiatives. From Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

ALGIERS, Oct. 1 (Reuters) - An Internet statement attributed to Algeria's largest outlawed Islamic militant group, aligned with Al Qaeda, says that it opposes amnesty in exchange for laying down its arms and that it will continue its jihad, or holy war.

In a Sept. 29 referendum, Algerians approved a government offer of partial amnesty for combatants in a civil war that lasted more than a decade and claimed more than 100,000 lives, mostly those of civilians.

"This vote is a waste of time," said the statement on an Islamist Web site, dated Sept. 27 and attributed to Abdelmalek Droukdal, also known as Abu Mossab Abdelwadoud, the leader of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. "Algeria is not in need of a charter for peace and national reconciliation, but in need of a charter for Islam."

It was the first time the Salafist Group had seemed to comment on the controversial amnesty project, but the statement's authenticity could not be immediately verified.

The Salafist Group is on the United States' list of foreign terrorist organizations and has recently expanded its activities to neighboring countries.

"The jihad will go on," the statement said. "We have promised God to continue the jihad and the combat."...

"There will be no peace and no reconciliation as long as Islam is not taken into consideration," said the statement attributed to Mr. Droukdal, which also praised Osama bin Laden and his deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Jihad Watch: Algerian Rebels Said to Reject Amnesty

[Dakar]

Since when does anything go well in Africa?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by mojo2

In you enthusiasm to make your point did you inadvertently fail to mention Algeria's harrowing struggle against Islam?

I am not very familiar with the history of Algeria!

Or was the omission intentional?

No.

And I am resisting the obvious conclusion that you would ask that I find a western, christian democracy because you didn't think these countries counted or were important.

No no, the countries you listed were quite ok, especially Somalia because there's really a big problem right now - they just banned music tapes and videos!!!
It just wasn't a democracy - the last government was a dictatorship!

We loved Germany when Germans weren't very lovable. Spread the love, man.

Huh? What and when do you mean?

Peace brother!!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by badidea

I am not very familiar with the history of Algeria!
No.

No no, the countries you listed were quite ok, especially Somalia because there's really a big problem right now - they just banned music tapes and videos!!!
It just wasn't a democracy - the last government was a dictatorship!

Huh? What and when do you mean?

Peace brother!!

But now to get serious, here...

The situation in Algeria was really dirty pool!

After much fighting there was a 'free' election and the Islam party won. So when they were about to take office they announced there would be no more elections.

The Army realized the Muslims were effectively hijacking the government and that's when the real fighting began. And that's when hundreds of thousands of Algerian Muslims fled to France but now the French have realized they made some errors in their immigration policies and the system for dealing with new residents especially those from Islamic countries.

And Somalia was being run violently and haphazardly by warlords who sorta had the support of the US (??? Don't ask me!???) when the Muslims came in and restored order I applauded it as a good thing. I even created a thread for it before I was banned. When I was unbanned the switchover of Somalia from being wild and free to being oppressively Islamic was a fait accompli.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ink

Get.

Off.

Petroleum.

How many times does it need to be said, by how many people, before conservatives will shut up about "wellll, the OTHER side never has any suggestions"...?

A-frickin-men!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

A-frickin-men!

I'm glad we are all in agreement. So now comes the easy part. Just tell us the details and we'll get started right on it.

[besson3c]

Mojo2,

I know that being banned crushed you, as you seem pretty addicted to posting your point of view in this forum using your several different handles.

Did you ever stop to think about *why* you were banned? I wasn't privy to the details, but I heard something along the lines of "not adding anything substantial to the conversation". Have you ever wondered what this means? It's not about the strength of your arguments, but because you are transparently uninterested in having a genuine conversation with us where you entertain any ideas other than your own.

Rather, you'd rather be on a constant crusade to "convert" everybody to your point of view through a constant baragge of articles you find on the internet and strange metaphors.

Ever stop and think that this might eventually result in you being banned again? Regardless of your standing with MacNN, have you ever stopped to consider how tiresome this comes across to your audience, possibly other than the ones who have shared your point of view since day 1?

[Dakar]

Now that I think about it, this could be the longest he's ever gone without posting an article.

Edit: Nevermind, started that Italy thread...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Mojo2,

I know that being banned crushed you, as you seem pretty addicted to posting your point of view in this forum using your several different handles.

Did you ever stop to think about *why* you were banned? I wasn't privy to the details, but I heard something along the lines of "not adding anything substantial to the conversation". Have you ever wondered what this means? It's not about the strength of your arguments, but because you are transparently uninterested in having a genuine conversation with us where you entertain any ideas other than your own.

Rather, you'd rather be on a constant crusade to "convert" everybody to your point of view through a constant baragge of articles you find on the internet and strange metaphors.

Ever stop and think that this might eventually result in you being banned again? Regardless of your standing with MacNN, have you ever stopped to consider how tiresome this comes across to your audience, possibly other than the ones who have shared your point of view since day 1?

If you believe I add nothing to conversations then I will not try to change your mind. How's that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you believe I add nothing to conversations then I will not try to change your mind. How's that?

I'm fairly confident that I'm not the only one who feels this way. How about a little respect to other P/L members? Not only is your constant repetitive posting style counter-productive to those you have decided not to listen to and acknowledge, but it is annoying to others who have to wade through your compulsive and obsessive reactionary posting.

You are not on my ignore list because I'm hoping you will clue in how to actually have a genuine conversation with others, because a part of me believes that you aren't simply posting here to hear yourself talk.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm fairly confident that I'm not the only one who feels this way. How about a little respect to other P/L members? Not only is your constant repetitive posting style counter-productive to those you have decided not to listen to and acknowledge, but it is annoying to others who have to wade through your compulsive and obsessive reactionary posting.

You are not on my ignore list because I'm hoping you will clue in how to actually have a genuine conversation with others, because a part of me believes that you aren't simply posting here to hear yourself talk.

You remind me of an ex-g/f. Nag, nag, nag.

So, how's the weather?

[besson3c]

Okay, I've completely and entirely given up on the idea that you will *ever* be interested in having a productive conversation. You are officially a waste of time. Ignore list, welcome your latest addition.

[mojo2]

From the link posted several postings above ("When Devils Walk The Earth" by Ralph Peters.) Each bullet point is explained at the website.

1. Be feared!

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful.

4. Speak bluntly.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win.

7. Avoid planning creep.

8. Maintain resolve.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary.

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it).

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists.

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.


14. Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations.

15. Don't flinch.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations. --(ED ADDED, "OR ANTI-WAR SENATORS ASPIRING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION.")


17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.


19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.


21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves.


23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.


24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.


25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!

[sek929]

Ok mojo, the only thing I have left to say is this.

Roughly paraphrased from the FRONTLINE I saw.

OBL before the Afghan Soviet war was heard to remark something along these lines.

A small number of strict believers could defeat a Superpower....and they did.

How exactly do you expect the US (a superpower) to defeat them now?

They are willing to sacrifice their first born sons readily, while we are not.

How do YOU suggest we combat this ideology?

I'll give you a hint, it doesn't start, or end with, war.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

All Bush, USA & WoT Bashers: What's Your Ideas To Stop Terrorism?
Time to put up or shut up.
Your opinions will never be given greater consideration.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Since you continue to whine and gripe and complain and laugh and deny I'd like to know what your suggestions are.

Wow, go go rude posts!

My idea is to fly all parties to Northern Ireland to see how we're "beating terrorism"*, coz our methods are working. True, there are a few very small splinter groups still hovering about, but the main terrorist groupings have stood down, and mostly disarmed, and their political representatives are taking part in politics.

We no longer have British soldiers patroilling our streets.

No longerer have our bags searched going into shops.

We no longer have weekly bomb alerts.

We've all but eliminated bombings, shootings.


How?

We talked to terrorists.

Sure, Sinn Fein and the IRA still want a unified Ireland, but now they do it using the ballot box, not the armalite.

Seriously, what we've done over the past ten years is not perfect, not without hiccups, never keeps all sides happy, but believe me, the people who are no longer in the crossfire are MUCH happier.







* Note, you don't beat terrorists using military means. When are smart people in the USA and Israel going to realise that?

Bomb an apartment block near a rocket launcher? Kill one terrorist, you've just allowed Hizbollah to recruit another 10.

Round up 10 suspects in a heavy handed raid on a town? The insurgents just got another 100 sympathisers.

[sek929]

Belfast, you are wasting your time. Mojo truly and unconditionally believes that Islamic Jihadists want to take over TEH ENTIRE WERLD!!! and will accept nothing to the contrary.

War is his only answer, and it's a weak and pathetic answer at best. War means nothing to people that have nothing to lose.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

Belfast, you are wasting your time. Mojo truly and unconditionally believes that Islamic Jihadists want to take over TEH ENTIRE WERLD!!! and will accept nothing to the contrary.

War is his only answer, and it's a weak and pathetic answer at best. War means nothing to people that have nothing to lose.

So, how can we negotiate with jihadists? What are their demands? What do they want?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Wow, go go rude posts!

My idea is to fly all parties to Northern Ireland to see how we're "beating terrorism"*, coz our methods are working. True, there are a few very small splinter groups still hovering about, but the main terrorist groupings have stood down, and mostly disarmed, and their political representatives are taking part in politics.

We no longer have British soldiers patroilling our streets.

No longerer have our bags searched going into shops.

We no longer have weekly bomb alerts.

We've all but eliminated bombings, shootings.


How?

We talked to terrorists.

Sure, Sinn Fein and the IRA still want a unified Ireland, but now they do it using the ballot box, not the armalite.

Seriously, what we've done over the past ten years is not perfect, not without hiccups, never keeps all sides happy, but believe me, the people who are no longer in the crossfire are MUCH happier.

* Note, you don't beat terrorists using military means. When are smart people in the USA and Israel going to realise that?

Bomb an apartment block near a rocket launcher? Kill one terrorist, you've just allowed Hizbollah to recruit another 10.

Round up 10 suspects in a heavy handed raid on a town? The insurgents just got another 100 sympathisers.

Your suggestions sound interesting. But do you think Islamic jihadists have the same mindset or motivations as either side in the "unpleasantries?"

[sek929]

Originally Posted by mojo2

So, how can we negotiate with jihadists? What are their demands? What do they want?

IMO they want their culture to stay the same way it's been for millenia, the only way these people will accept democracy is from within.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Thanks for the suggestion to Scientific American!

But terrorism exists today. The solutions in S.A. will not reduce our dependence on M.E. oil tomorrow. What can we do today?

What makes you think global Islamic jihad would stop if we pulled every American out of the M.E.?

You're implying that my solution would have been worse than the Iraq solution. I know that we cannot go back in time and run both situations to find the optimal one, but I do disagree with that premise. By invading Iraq (sorry if you feel that this is "bashing" Bush) we put off implementing the solution to the real problem, which is: The United States is vulnerable to foriegn countries for the petroleum that we must import everyday. We can get into specifics about why signing Kyoto in the early 90's would have helped, why a luxury tax on SUV's would have helped (with the monies going to power sources that the USA can produce itself) and such, but in my experience conservatives also see this as "Bush bashing".

In short: Invading Iraq was worse than investing in energy independence. I'm not claiming that it would have solved all terrorist problems, but only that it would have been better. The longer we put it off, the more vulnerable our security will be in the future to the whims of madmen in Iran and other such places.

Independence = Security

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by sek929

Belfast, you are wasting your time. Mojo truly and unconditionally believes that Islamic Jihadists want to take over TEH ENTIRE WERLD!!!

No, no, no, a MAN would realise that that is only their opening hand, and it also plays to their own audience.

IRA did the same thing, but have we got a united Ireland now, or are their political representatives sitting in Westminster and a (currently stalled) NI parliament, like good little statesmen?

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

So, how can we negotiate with jihadists? What are their demands? What do they want?

Asking them, not shelling them, would seem like a good start?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Asking them, not shelling them, would seem like a good start?

What if you read their Covenant which says any negotiation is "a waste of time?"

What if the Covenant and the Koran both advise the only way they will win is to use violent jihad and deceit?

What if in previous cease-fires they did what the Koran advises and used that time to build up their forces and their ability to wage war again and when they were ready they launched new attacks?

What if every time you gave up land to get peace you wound up with less land and no peace?

What then?

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What if...
What if ...
What if...
What if...

Lotta what if's there mojoman.... you gonna get those answered by talking, or fightin'?

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What if you read their Covenant which says any negotiation is "a waste of time?"

Then you use third parties. We used catholic priests and the like initially as go betweens. No-one knew at the time, coz we "didn't negotiate with terrorists".

But negotiating with terrorists is what is was, and it paid off.



Sorry, am I making too much sense here for you Mojoman, thinking too much? Should I ramp up the blind hate just a little? I'm Irish, we used to be good at that... I'm sure I can find it within myself to be a little more like... you?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Then you use third parties. We used catholic priests and the like initially as go betweens. No-one knew at the time, coz we "didn't negotiate with terrorists".

But negotiating with terrorists is what is was, and it paid off.



Sorry, am I making too much sense here for you Mojoman, thinking too much? Should I ramp up the blind hate just a little? I'm Irish, we used to be good at that... I'm sure I can find it within myself to be a little more like... you?

No, you are where I was two years ago. Woefully uninformed about the truth of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and filled with myths and misconceptions just waiting to be dispelled.

As for the third party go-betweens and the long history of Palestinian tricks and funny stuff and disappointments during a period of time when Israel was able to reach peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan the Palestinians keep stepping back whenever a deal is in sight...Read it and weep.

Negotiations With The Palestinians Table of Contents

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No, you are where I was two years ago.

I seriously doubt that mojoman. Nice jewishvirtualibrary link though. I'm sure it's unbiased.

Anyhow, how's that "shelling Hezbollah into submission" been working for ya?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

I seriously doubt that mojoman. Nice jewishvirtualibrary link though. I'm sure it's unbiased.

Anyhow, how's that "shelling Hezbollah into submission" been working for ya?

Hahaha! Hows it workin for YOU?

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hahaha! Hows it workin for YOU?

Me? Well, I'm a few hundred miles away, so it's not affecting me.

Now, are you laughing at the irony of increasing recruitment for Hezbollah, the rise of Iran's influence in the region, Israeli's being wounded or dead kids in Lebanon? I'm unclear on that. Clue me in on the joke, mojoman.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

After much fighting there was a 'free' election and the Islam party won. So when they were about to take office they announced there would be no more elections.

Hold on a second here. Are you sure this is the order of events?

I haven't had time to do any research, but this doesn't jive with what I remember learning. Your statement implies that it was in fact the Muslim party (FIS I think) which announced it would curtail democracy, and the army then stepped in to prevent this.

Your short summary places an onus of blame on the Muslim Party, and makes the Army seem as if it was upholding democratic freedoms which the FIS had threatened.

Your summary sounds incorrect to my ears. Anyone have some free time to do some research? From what I remember, it was not the FIS but in fact the Army which didn't want a Muslim group gaining power, and halted elections as a result.

In other news, I love this: an open thread asking for ideas from the "opposing viewpoint" crowd - all of which are immediately debated and shown how wrong they are, or how they won't work. Or, like some, how they are from a mindset that abe "grew out of two years ago."

Innnnnnnnnnnnnnteresting.

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm glad we are all in agreement. So now comes the easy part. Just tell us the details and we'll get started right on it.

An Apollo program to fight global warming which has the fringe benefit of ridding us of our addiciton to oil.

First, we pull all subsidies from the oil industry and shift them into firms developing green technology.

We earmark billions of dollars toward building a mass transit system, nation-wide, based on fuel cells. The government, then, will be creating the backbone for a Hydrogen economy which will ease consumer migration. We base this not on Hydrogen from fossil fuels, but on sustainable sources. Using wind, hydro and solar power to extract hydrogen from water. Perhaps we could even resurrect OTEC. We push for the creation of hydrogen plants of all sizes, giving tax breaks and other incentives to companies installing such plants.

We begin to phase in punishing sin taxes on automobiles for every non-fuel cell vehicle they produce.

We mandate that all new residential construction in the country conform to certain standards--green communities which encourage less vehicular travel, more walking and bicycling.

Push the WTO and other world bodies to enact environmental standards to force other Developed economies to shift to clean technology and sell technology grants to developing economies like China and India so they can take a more responsible development route than we did.

Wait, let me anticipate the objections: That would cost a fortune! The technology doesn't exit yet!

The technology exists, but we lack the economy of scale and the technical knowledge to apply it en masse. But when Kennedy launched the Apollo program, we didn't know what we'd need to reach the moon either.

As to the cost, industry swore up and down that the Clean Air Act would bankrupt the country, but instead it created new industries. It created a muliplier effect in the economy.

We face a tremendous challenge. It demands of us will and vision--not the short-sighted leadership we have been offered so far.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No, you are where I was two years ago. Woefully uninformed about the truth of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and filled with myths and misconceptions just waiting to be dispelled.

As for the third party go-betweens and the long history of Palestinian tricks and funny stuff and disappointments during a period of time when Israel was able to reach peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan the Palestinians keep stepping back whenever a deal is in sight...Read it and weep.

Negotiations With The Palestinians Table of Contents

You're right, the Palestinians have derailed the peace process. I can't believe they're unwilling to accept a peace proposal that leaves them wholly dependent on Israel for their water. Damn monsters, when will they accept their subservient posiiton to their betters? This totally justifies the indiscriminate use of violence by the IDF.

Face it, mojo, both sides are so deep in blood and so far past the line of basic human decency that there's no room left to favor one side or the other. We--you, me, the US, the EU, the UN, everyone on Earth--should just be pushing for them to get over their history, get past what their dellusions tell them God wants for them, and just learn to live in peace.

[Spliffdaddy]

Heh.

Figured I'd wait until page 3 just to see if the liberals actually had any ideas on how to win the war on terror.

Sure enough...."diplomacy". Which is another word for "compromise".

Folks, this is a religious war. When religious ideologies collide, there is simply no room for compromise. So tell me, what are you willing to concede? to give up, in exchange for concessions from the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you be willing to become a Muslim?

What would the Islamic fundamentalists be willing to do in exchange for our concessions?

Would they wear rosary beads? Or, perhaps become Methodists - and learn to cook?

The fact is, they want to kill us. To kill our children. Because we aren't an Islamic nation.

So, perhaps we could just take our own lives. To save them the trouble - in a good-faith effort at "diplomacy".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Heh.

Figured I'd wait until page 3 just to see if the liberals actually had any ideas on how to win the war on terror.

Sure enough...."diplomacy". Which is another word for "compromise".

Folks, this is a religious war. When religious ideologies collide, there is simply no room for compromise. So tell me, what are you willing to concede? to give up, in exchange for concessions from the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you be willing to become a Muslim?

What would the Islamic fundamentalists be willing to do in exchange for our concessions?

Would they wear rosary beads? Or, perhaps become Methodists - and learn to cook?

The fact is, they want to kill us. To kill our children. Because we aren't an Islamic nation.

So, perhaps we could just take our own lives. To save them the trouble - in a good-faith effort at "diplomacy".

Do a word search for "diplomacy", the first instance of this is in your post. Where are you getting this from? Are you a robot?

This is not a religious war, but a war justified by religious beliefs. There is an important difference here. Like another poster said, how can we win this war if our understanding of our enemy is as flimsey as yours?

[Spliffdaddy]

And your solution was what?

[besson3c]

Just to ward off the inevitable "what are YOUR ideas" directed at me, I'll respond by asking what are yours? I'll follow by pointing out that I tried sharing some of my ideas in another recent thread, and this went nowhere.

The problem is that the most vocal individuals of this thread are not looking for a genuine exchange of ideas. There is absolutely nothing I could say that would make them say "hey, good ideas besson3c" unless they were pretty much exactly the same as theirs.

So, this thread sucks.

[besson3c]

Heheh... wrote my response predicting Spliffdaddy's before I even read his - and got it right!

[Spliffdaddy]

So, you admit that you have no solution. Fair enough....you aren't alone.

My solution is to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism worldwide - by force, if necessary - in order to preserve our freedom for future generations.

We should secure our borders - by force, if necessary.

We should take steps to significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil - by building more nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

We should, at all costs, eliminate the possibility of any more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I think Dubya is doing a fair job on recognizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalists terrorists. He's doing a bad job at the other stuff I mentioned.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My solution is to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism worldwide - by force, if necessary - in order to preserve our freedom for future generations.

This is impossible. Someone, somewhere, will always have a bomb or a gun and an intent to use it.

We should secure our borders - by force, if necessary.

This is possible, depending on your definition of "secure."

We should take steps to significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil - by building more nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Yes, although I thought that our electricity supply was already predominantly from coal? I wasn't aware that oil was a significant source of electricity.

We should, at all costs, eliminate the possibility of any more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This would be nice, but, you have to accept the reality that the current wording of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty makes it trivial for any state to acquire the technical know-how to build a small stockpile of nuclear weapons in a matter of months. Thus far, the only nations that have been successfully de-nuclearized have done so voluntarily. Strengthening the international nuclear non-proliferation regime will require renegotiating the NPT, with compromises on different sides.

think Dubya is doing a fair job on recognizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalists terrorists. He's doing a bad job at the other stuff I mentioned.

Yes.

[Spliffdaddy]

"This is impossible. Someone, somewhere, will always have a bomb or a gun and an intent to use it."

The ones we eradicate won't.

I think a lot of people would rather do nothing than attempt something that's difficult, but worthwhile.

I hear the same thing said about illegal immigrants..."It's impossible to deport them all."

Well, that may be true, but I think it's possible to deport a majority of them - which is better than none.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"This is impossible. Someone, somewhere, will always have a bomb or a gun and an intent to use it."

The ones we eradicate won't.

I think a lot of people would rather do nothing than attempt something that's difficult, but worthwhile.

I hear the same thing said about illegal immigrants..."It's impossible to deport them all."

Well, that may be true, but I think it's possible to deport a majority of them - which is better than none.

Yes, but you said eradicate. I was just pointing out that eradication isn't a solution.

[besson3c]

Spliffdaddy, these aren't solutions, but goals - many of them ambiguous at that.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My solution is to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism worldwide - by force, if necessary - in order to preserve our freedom for future generations.

Great! How?

We should secure our borders - by force, if necessary.

Secure them from what? How? How much resources do we devote to this, and where does the funding come from?

We should take steps to significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil - by building more nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Agreed, although I'd add funding the R&D and establishment of a few other alternatives too.

We should, at all costs, eliminate the possibility of any more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Which nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and who or what determines this?



Care to put more thought into this, or is the gesture sufficient to you? If I gestured, would that make you happy that I officially contributed my solution?