Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel: You Deal with Terrorists by Leaving behind Their ‘Crying Widows’

[Dexter]

Put me in the disagree column! Strongly in fact!

The current threat is the most existential threat we have EVER faced in my view!

In your opinion how are the extremists in the Middle East going to destroy the United States and wipe out its people? What means do they have to do this with? Walk me through the demise of the United States at the hands of middle eastern extremists step by step.

[alicewonders]

In your opinion how are the extremists in the Middle East going to destroy the United States and wipe out its people? What means do they have to do this with?

From within our own gov't.

[Dexter]

From within our own gov't.

So how do they do that? Assuming there was some kind of hostile takeover of our government, how does this happen and how does it actually work in their favor? One in four Americans owns a gun. Our men and women in uniform are patriots (as well as being predominately Republican). Do you think our armed forces would turn around and start murdering civilians in the name of sharia, or is it more likely that they would stand with the American people? What about the police? It doesn't make sense. There is no way they could realistically destroy us or our way of life.

[olde north church]

These people have been a thorn in the side of this country for longer than any.  You may want to research what the phrase "Millions for defense, not a penny in tribute" refers to.

[Scottftlc]

First of all we are not in an existential conflict. I know many here will disagree, but our existence is not at risk of being destroyed. Second of all in WWII killing innocent civilians was not the point; it was an unfortunate side effect of the mission we needed to complete. There are no industrial areas in Iraq/Afghanistan churning out war machines to destroy us. If we started carpet bombing their cities it would be with the intention of killing as many people as we could just because we didn't know which ones were bad. That is utterly insane when doing that is absolutely not necessary.

You agree with the French government, the U.S. government, the German government and a host of other western governments then. They do not believe in an existential struggle either.  OK fine...the Imams feel very differently, as does ISIS and al Qaeda.  Then we accept the occasional 9/11, the "workplace violence", the Charlie Hebdo, the Van Gogh, the Ottawa and all those actions of various degrees and intensities and treat them as police work.  We establish the "no go" zones in our countries and just think of them as modern Indian reservations.  That's how we are treating it now, you should be happy with our policies.

It is an interesting distinction you make between our complete destruction of Japanese and German cities and fighting the Islamic style of warfare:  Because Germany and Japan were organized in western industrial style, it was necessary to bomb their cities and kill their civilians to stop their ability to attack us.  But because Islam uses different, asymmetric, tactics to attack our cities and our civilians, such a response is unthinkable.  Methinks you are splitting hairs and making excuses.  You do not believe that Islam is a threat to the survival of the west.  And that is where your position comes from...including the splitting hairs.  You are not alone in maintaining that belief...it is a basic tenant of left wing philosophy.

[Dexter]

You do not believe that Islam is a threat to the survival of the west.

You're absolutely right.

[Bigun]

So how do they do that? Assuming there was some kind of hostile takeover of our government, how does this happen and how does it actually work in their favor? One in four Americans owns a gun. Our men and women in uniform are patriots (as well as being predominately Republican). Do you think our armed forces would turn around and start murdering civilians in the name of sharia, or is it more likely that they would stand with the American people? What about the police? It doesn't make sense. There is no way they could realistically destroy us or our way of life.

1. There are millions of them already here in the West.

2. Many of those are living in areas where our police do not wander under Sharia whether or not they like it!

3. They killed 3000 of us on our own soil on 9/11/2001, many others since, and would like nothing more than to kill every last one of us! 

4. if we don't begin to REALLY fight them soon it's only going to get worse!

5. Nancy Pelosi just appointed one of the to serve on the House Intelligence Committee!

[truth_seeker]

Here is a somewhat realistic scenario: The US becomes oil-self-sufficient, through technology etc.

The US decides that jihad gets money from middle-east oil money.

The US decides to gradually degrade the ability of the middle east to get money, from oil. Destroy refineries, processing plants, distribution pipelines throughout the middle east. The US built much of that infrastructure, BTW.

The civilized West could pose options for the major nations in the middle east:

We have several ways to go on this; the terrorists are your guys. It is your job to destroy them.

Destroy the terrorists, and peace and prosperity is your reward, but if not.....

We systematically degrade your economy by bombing petroleum and related facilities. We built them, and we can destroy them. It could bring down monarchies.

Third way is mass destruction of human life in muslim terror supporting nations, regions, etc.

The idea that 10,000 ISIL/ISIS have control in parts of Iraq and Syria, and there is little to stop them is beyond ridiculous. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Yemen and others could and should mount armies to destroy the terrorist.

They could use the military hardware which came from us.

We could and should be far, far more aggressive in pushing the muslim nations to take care of the muslim problem.

Bottom line, we are no longer hostages to middle east oil, and we should stop giving them credit as our allies.

[musiclady]

You agree with the French government, the U.S. government, the German government and a host of other western governments then. They do not believe in an existential struggle either.  OK fine...the Imams feel very differently, as does ISIS and al Qaeda.  Then we accept the occasional 9/11, the "workplace violence", the Charlie Hebdo, the Van Gogh, the Ottawa and all those actions of various degrees and intensities and treat them as police work.  We establish the "no go" zones in our countries and just think of them as modern Indian reservations.  That's how we are treating it now, you should be happy with our policies.

It is an interesting distinction you make between our complete destruction of Japanese and German cities and fighting the Islamic style of warfare:  Because Germany and Japan were organized in western industrial style, it was necessary to bomb their cities and kill their civilians to stop their ability to attack us.  But because Islam uses different, asymmetric, tactics to attack our cities and our civilians, such a response is unthinkable.  Methinks you are splitting hairs and making excuses.  You do not believe that Islam is a threat to the survival of the west.  And that is where your position comes from...including the splitting hairs.  You are not alone in maintaining that belief...it is a basic tenant of left wing philosophy.

What I believe to be your key points are bolded here.

#1  Militant Islam is most definitely an existential threat to the USA because of the reason you state.  THEY believe they are.  It is THEIR goal to destroy us.  Ignoring that very clear fact is putting one's head in the sand.

#2  Dex is most definitely not alone in his belief stated rather articulately in his posts.  He thinks that the danger from militant Islam doesn't exist, just as the European left does, and the American left, including this administration.  That is precisely why they will do nothing substantial to remove the threat.  They're pretending it doesn't exist, and labeling those who understand it as "Islamophobes."

IMO, this naivte, and tacit or overt support of our enemy puts us in even greater danger.

[aligncare]

So how do they do that? Assuming there was some kind of hostile takeover of our government, how does this happen and how does it actually work in their favor? One in four Americans owns a gun. Our men and women in uniform are patriots (as well as being predominately Republican). Do you think our armed forces would turn around and start murdering civilians in the name of sharia, or is it more likely that they would stand with the American people? What about the police? It doesn't make sense. There is no way they could realistically destroy us or our way of life.

I'm in your column, Dex. Good post.

[aligncare]

I don't believe anyone, including Dex naïvely believes there is no threat. It's just that the world is a big place and religious extremists are going to find it a very hostile place to their alien philosophy of involuntary religious subjugation.

[Bigun]

I don't believe anyone, including Dex naïvely believes there is no threat. It's just that the world is a big place and religious extremists are going to find it a very hostile place to their alien philosophy of involuntary religious subjugation.

Watch this and then get back to me!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

[aligncare]

That link won't work for me. I'm on my iPad if that has any effect.

[aligncare]

Okay. Thanks.

[aligncare]

Well, then it would seem the world will have to rely on Ireland, Mexico and South America to save Europe from the coming Islamization. Maybe that could be a solution to America's illegal immigration problem.

We could export our illegal Mexicans, who have no problem reproducing, to Europe to help populate it with Christians and maybe slow down the Islamization there until a fertility emergency can be declared in the rest of the world. Maybe the UN could take up this issue.

Tongue in cheek, of course.

[rb224315]

So how do they do that? Assuming there was some kind of hostile takeover of our government, how does this happen and how does it actually work in their favor? One in four Americans owns a gun. Our men and women in uniform are patriots (as well as being predominately Republican). Do you think our armed forces would turn around and start murdering civilians in the name of sharia, or is it more likely that they would stand with the American people? What about the police? It doesn't make sense. There is no way they could realistically destroy us or our way of life.

I'm in your column, Dex. Good post.

I struggle with the "what to do" question also.  I haven't reached any conclusions yet but I'll comment on the post above regarding gun ownership, infiltrating the government, etc.

The history of Germany vis-à-vis WWI and WWII is instructive.  There was a long history of strife going back to well before the Franco-Prussian war, and the wars were somewhat typical, if one can use "typical" in a discussion about human beings killing each other in huge numbers.  What changed the conflicts from ones where lots of people were killed by both sides to one where one of the belligerents was willing to kill on a massive scale, seeking out ways to efficiently kill non-combatants with Zyklon B, for example?  How did Germany make the jump from "regular" war to the holocaust?  Just as interestingly, how did it happen so quickly?

My first point:  I don't necessarily need, at this moment, to see how the hostile takeover happens.  I can use history to see that it has happened.  If it has happened once it can happen again, and it can be slow or it can be quick.

On the subject of gun ownership:  as long as the average American supports gun ownership with its attendant rights and responsibilities, I do not fear a takeover.  However, the bad people in history didn't just let the citizenry keep their guns.  If Americans' guns are taken away it will be done incrementally.

I'm not worried about a major loss of freedom in the short to medium term.  I don't believe today's politicians (on either side) have seriously nefarious motivations or goals.  I do, however, worry that willingly giving in to terror and tyranny (in small and simple ways like self-censorship, for example) is becoming acceptable.  One thing leads to another and in a generation or 2 the protection of our natural rights has been significantly eroded and *then* people with nefarious objectives can work their evil.

[Relic]

Fact:
During the 3.5 years of US involvement in WWII, ten percent of the US population of 160 million, served in uniform. That is 16 million served in uniform.

These days we drag matters out endlessly, as if we are embarrassed to actually deploy the worlds most powerful military, which we have ALL been paying for for over 60 years.

We did not fight WWII with precision pinpricks, fearing to harm innocent civilians in the enemy country.

We considered the German and Japanese civilians to be part of the enemy camp. Their soldiers were the sons of these civilians.

We  felt that if the civilians felt the full force of their losses, they would sue their government to surrender unconditionally.

We actually took the war so seriously, that we isolated some Germans, Italians and Japanese identity people in camps, in the US.

And guess what was the result of these tactics? We defeated Germany and Japan on several continents in 3.5 years and it has stayed that way ever since.

Contrast that with 13 years beyond Sept. 11, 2001 when muslim terrorists must feel emboldened to be wearing the US down, as we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq.

To bring Eisenhower into the discussion, why even have a great military-industrial complex, if you do not have the willingness to use it?

Simply put, what we have been doing since 9/11/2001 has not worked. It has consistently been not enough. Too few troops, too few enemy dead, to many cities left unharmed.

Too many years to still be in a standoff.

Well said.

And to respectfully correct what Lt. Col. Peters said, you don't leave a crying widow. You kill the terrorist, you kill his family, and burn down his house.

[aligncare]

Within Islam itself different sect at war with each other. The East–West conflict may not be simple and straightforward as some would have you think.

Younger generations tend to reject the religion of their fathers. Islam is a hard case, agreed. But I don't see that newer generations will willing reject freedoms like sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, or free speech for that matter, enjoyed in the Internet age, for a repressive, misogynistic ideology like Islam.

[olde north church]

Within Islam itself different sect at war with each other. The East–West conflict may not be simple and straightforward as some would have you think.

Younger generations tend to reject the religion of their fathers. Islam is a hard case, agreed. But I don't see that newer generations will willing reject freedoms like sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, or free speech for that matter, enjoyed in the Internet age, for a repressive, misogynistic ideology like Islam.

I would have to respectfully disagree on the second point.  Many of the European jihadist ARE second and third generations who see an empty life with no focus.  The first generations heard and/or saw the shitholes from whence then came.  The immigrants remembered many of the corrupt heads of state.  Who attempted a Pan-Arabist state built upon islo-socialism.
You can only sit in a coffee bar or hookah bar sucking the socialist tit day after day after day.

[rb224315]

Within Islam itself different sect at war with each other. The East–West conflict may not be simple and straightforward as some would have you think.

Younger generations tend to reject the religion of their fathers. Islam is a hard case, agreed. But I don't see that newer generations will willing reject freedoms like sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, or free speech for that matter, enjoyed in the Internet age, for a repressive, misogynistic ideology like Islam.

Younger generations' tendency to reject the religion of their fathers may reflect reality, but only when that religion respects the liberty of the individual.  Islam doesn't respect the right of the individual to accept or reject Islam in whole or in part.  Apostates are regularly brutalized and murdered, and the same goes for infidels who do not submit.

[Fishrrman]

Scott wrote above:
[[ We all know from Paris that the west is willing to die for its beliefs.  And I am certain the Isamists are more then happy to oblige them in ever increasing numbers.  What we don't know is if the west any longer has the stomach to kill for its beliefs...or even its existence. ]]

Scott, I think the answer will be known before too much longer.

Give it another 20-30 years.
By then the answer to your thoughts above will be obvious throughout the Western World.

And that world we be made to ponder Winston Churchill's observation:
===========
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ In your opinion how are the extremists in the Middle East going to destroy the United States and wipe out its people? What means do they have to do this with? ]]

Sorry, Dex, you're as blind as a bat.

Look at what 19 men accomplished with nothing more than box cutters back in 2001.

The United States could be rendered all-but helpless with one atomic bomb exploded at high altitude.

The islamic world has such weapons today.

When Iran -- one of the most radical states -- gets the bomb (as it will), all bets are going to come off.

All they'll need is to figure out how to "get the package delivered"...

[Dexter]

Dex wrote above:
[[ In your opinion how are the extremists in the Middle East going to destroy the United States and wipe out its people? What means do they have to do this with? ]]

Sorry, Dex, you're as blind as a bat.

Look at what 19 men accomplished with nothing more than box cutters back in 2001.

The United States could be rendered all-but helpless with one atomic bomb exploded at high altitude.

The islamic world has such weapons today.

When Iran -- one of the most radical states -- gets the bomb (as it will), all bets are going to come off.

All they'll need is to figure out how to "get the package delivered"...

The unfortunate reality we need to face is that until detection methods improve there is no realistic way to prevent small groups of people from committing acts of terrorism, especially when they are more than willing to give up their lives to do it. Bombing the Middle East isn't going to decrease our chances of being attacked by terrorists; it might actually increase them. Also, we're talking about whether or not they pose an existential threat. The possibility of a successful terrorist attack happening at some point is far from an existential threat, and it is also not a proper justification for eradicating millions of people.

[Dexter]

#1  Militant Islam is most definitely an existential threat to the USA because of the reason you state.  THEY believe they are.  It is THEIR goal to destroy us.  Ignoring that very clear fact is putting one's head in the sand.

Wishing for the complete annihilation of the United States does not give one the means to achieve that goal. North Korean leadership wishes for the complete annihilation of the United States too; that doesn't make them an existential threat. If there was a chiwawa that lived across the street from you and it wished for your death you would not consider it an existential threat.

[rb224315]

Wishing for the complete annihilation of the United States does not give one the means to achieve that goal. North Korean leadership wishes for the complete annihilation of the United States too; that doesn't make them an existential threat.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it can't happen" because you don't see how it can happen is tomfoolery.  "It can't happen right now, so we can ignore it."  The fact is, it most certainly is happening right now but it's slow enough that if a person doesn't want to see it they can choose not to.

Now you're claiming that this is silly, so here's an example:  civilized European society, based on Western values is suffering from an existential threat.  The combination of leftism and Islam is making the place unlivable.  Leftist immigration policy gave Islam a toehold in Europe and Muslim immigrants are taking care of things from there. 

What's that?  Islam isn't a big problem in Europe?  When the French "ban the burqua", you have to know there's a serious problem.

Could Islamic militants kill every last person in the US tomorrow?  If they had the means they would do it, BTW, but no, they couldn't do it.  Just because they can't kill us all doesn't mean there's no existential threat.  They're just as happy to extract the jizyah, so they don't really need to kill everyone.  Over time they can kill free societies, though.