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

[olde north church]

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.

Sometimes ya just wish you could tell them to turn around and "Look at the flowers.  Just look at the flowers."

[Fishrrman]

rb wrote above:
[[ 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. ]]

Very cogent point there.

It would not be wise for them to "kill everyone" -- rather, it behooves them to keep a good number of us around, to serve as dhimmified jizyah-payers.

It's for the same reason you may hear blacks rage against whites and "white privilege", but they sure as heck don't want us "gone" -- if that were the case, who would pay for the welfare system and the "gimme's" ??

[Dexter]

"It can't happen right now, so we can ignore it."

What is the alternative? How do we make Islam not a threat? Do we wage permanent war in the Middle East and keep killing them until there are none left? Do you think if we murder enough people the extremists will eventually give up? Did it ever occur to you that the more damage we do over there the more desperate and susceptible to extremist rhetoric people will become?

[rb224315]

What is the alternative? How do we make Islam not a threat? Do we wage permanent war in the Middle East and keep killing them until there are none left? Do you think if we murder enough people the extremists will eventually give up? Did it ever occur to you that the more damage we do over there the more desperate and susceptible to extremist rhetoric people will become?

The post reveals two major misconceptions.

1)  "Do you think if we murder enough people"--Killing terrorists is not murder.
2)  "desperate and susceptible to extremist rhetoric"--The extremist rhetoric preceded Western actions.  It started with Muhammad and continues today through the teachings of the Koran.  In early US history they demanded tribute from Americans at sea, which led to the Barbary Wars.  At that time there was no Israel, no "occupations", etc.  What was their excuse back then?

Spreading Islam by the sword (or extracting tribute) was the excuse.

I don't know what to do about it but something must be done and the options need to be discussed.  My only point in this thread is that ignoring the threat, pretending it doesn't exist, or whining that 'there's nothing we can do!' won't make it go away.

[Dexter]

Killing terrorists is not murder.

No, but relentlessly bombing Middle Eastern cities in the hopes that some of the people we kill are the bad guys would be murder.

2)  "desperate and susceptible to extremist rhetoric"--The extremist rhetoric preceded Western actions.  It started with Muhammad and continues today through the teachings of the Koran.  In early US history they demanded tribute from Americans at sea, which led to the Barbary Wars.  At that time there was no Israel, no "occupations", etc.  What was their excuse back then?

We are talking about today. Not all Muslims are extremists, but more of them will become extremists after their homes and families are destroyed.

[aligncare]

What is the alternative? How do we make Islam not a threat? Do we wage permanent war in the Middle East and keep killing them until there are none left? Do you think if we murder enough people the extremists will eventually give up? Did it ever occur to you that the more damage we do over there the more desperate and susceptible to extremist rhetoric people will become?

It's a dilemma, certainly. Opinions will vary.

I'm not smart enough to have a "definitive" answer to your question, Dex. But that's why we try to elect the best leaders to bring together the brightest people with the best experience to tackle this question – and then to do something, within constitutional limits, and with the best interest of the American people and their security in mind.

[rb224315]

No, but relentlessly bombing Middle Eastern cities in the hopes that some of the people we kill are the bad guys would be murder.

We are talking about today. Not all Muslims are extremists, but more of them will become extremists after their homes and families are destroyed.

Who is relentlessly bombing??  We've been relentlessly retreating for 6 years.  What limited bombing has happened was targeting ISIS and other terrorists, not civilians.  The current news includes the Charlie Hebdo murders (unarmed civilians targeted by Islamic goons) and a 10 year old girl sent (probably without her knowing she was about to die) into a Nigerian market wearing a suicide bomb, again, targeting civilians.  Maybe the Muslim fanatics should worry about radicalizing the Western world as a result of their targeting of civilians.

Yes, we're talking about today, but to ignore history is to repeat it.  Nobody from this hemisphere was destroying homes or families in the late 1700s but the Muslim world did not let American ships off the hook.  Why is that, I wonder?  The reason is the same now as it was then--spreading Islam, by force if necessary.

If US actions are radicalizing Muslims, what is causing them to target civilians in Nigeria?  Are the Nigerians relentlessly bombing them?

[Dexter]

Who is relentlessly bombing??  We've been relentlessly retreating for 6 years.  What limited bombing has happened was targeting ISIS and other terrorists, not civilians.  The current news includes the Charlie Hebdo murders (unarmed civilians targeted by Islamic goons) and a 10 year old girl sent (probably without her knowing she was about to die) into a Nigerian market wearing a suicide bomb, again, targeting civilians.  Maybe the Muslim fanatics should worry about radicalizing the Western world as a result of their targeting of civilians.

This is starting to become tedious. I am not saying we are currently bombing anybody relentlessly. Many here have implied that we are not doing what is needed to stop radical Islamists. I am asking what the solution is, and saying that if we decided to start carpet bombing their cities in hopes of taking out some of the bad guys it would be murder. Please try to stay with me and actually understand the context of what I am saying before you make a post.

[aligncare]

Also, the more heinous and brazen these terrorist attacks become, the more opposition to Islam grows in the west.

See the pattern of escalation? It goes both ways.

[alicewonders]

Also, the more heinous and brazen these terrorist attacks become, the more opposition to Islam grows in the west.

See the pattern of escalation? It goes both ways.

Unfortunately, we're seeing stupid liberals starting to blame ISRAEL for these attacks! 

[rb224315]

No, but relentlessly bombing Middle Eastern cities in the hopes that some of the people we kill are the bad guys would be murder.

We are talking about today. Not all Muslims are extremists, but more of them will become extremists after their homes and families are destroyed.

"Relentlessly bombing . . . . We are talking about today".

This is I am not saying we are currently bombing anybody relentlessly.

Oh?  What were you saying in the previous post?

This is starting to become tedious.

Indeed.

[rb224315]

I'm still wondering what is going on in Nigeria.  Is the West doing something there?  Is Western occupation the reason for the suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. there?  Or, could the violence there have something to do with . . . . oh, I don't know . . . . Islam?

Here's a hint:  the English translation of the official name of Boko Haram is "People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad".

We've withdrawn from Iraq but the bombings continue.  Strange, I'd say.  We gave them what they claimed to want and yet they're still bombing away.

Let's not bury our collective heads in the sand and ignore the thread which is common to these terror groups.  It's not Western action.  It's Islam.

[musiclady]

Unfortunately, we're seeing stupid liberals starting to blame ISRAEL for these attacks!

Perhaps the dumbest of them all........... Jimmy Carter.

[Dexter]

Oh?  What were you saying in the previous post?

You've completely misunderstood the context of my posts and you're just making yourself look foolish now.

[rb224315]

You've completely misunderstood the context of my posts and you're just making yourself look foolish now.

 

[Relic]

You've completely misunderstood the context of my posts and you're just making yourself look foolish now.

As a disinterested bystander, I point out that it is incumbent on the writer to be clear, in order to be understood. If the reader misinterprets your posts, then your posts aren't clear.

As an aside, claiming that someone you are exchanging posts with is making themselves look foolish... that's only in your view, you don't know what others think.

[GourmetDan]

As an aside, claiming that someone you are exchanging posts with is making themselves look foolish... that's only in your view, you don't know what others think.

I think we all see that as an attempt to declare victory without providing any substantive argument to support it.

Well... most of us anyway...

[aligncare]

As a disinterested bystander, I point out that it is incumbent on the writer to be clear, in order to be understood. If the reader misinterprets your posts, then your posts aren't clear.

As an aside, claiming that someone you are exchanging posts with is making themselves look foolish... that's only in your view, you don't know what others think.

Good post. Most of us are not professional writers. We all know how to write, but few know how to communicate.

[olde north church]

Good post. Most of us are not professional writers. We all know how to write, but few know how to communicate.

And what we have hee-yah, is a fay-yuh to commoo-kate.

[Dexter]

As a disinterested bystander, I point out that it is incumbent on the writer to be clear, in order to be understood. If the reader misinterprets your posts, then your posts aren't clear.

As an aside, claiming that someone you are exchanging posts with is making themselves look foolish... that's only in your view, you don't know what others think.

Who other than him didn't understand that I was not saying we are actively bombing Middle Eastern cities relentlessly? Who didn't understand that I wasn't saying we are currently murdering anybody? Just in the bit he quoted above I clearly said "would be murder." If I was talking about something we were actually doing right now I would have said "is murder." Saying "would be" implies that we are not actually doing it right now. I was clear; it's not my responsibility to break it down to a 5th grade level so certain people can understand what is being said in the conversation.

[musiclady]

And what we have hee-yah, is a fay-yuh to commoo-kate.

 

[musiclady]

Who other than him didn't understand that I was not saying we are actively bombing Middle Eastern cities relentlessly? Who didn't understand that I wasn't saying we are currently murdering anybody? Just in the bit he quoted above I clearly said "would be murder." If I was talking about something we were actually doing right now I would have said "is murder." Saying "would be" implies that we are not actually doing it right now. I was clear; it's not my responsibility to break it down to a 5th grade level so certain people can understand what is being said in the conversation.

Ah, but we ARE murdering people.  By the thousands.

Ergo, the confusion as to what you were trying to say.

It was befuddled, and therefore lent itself to misunderstanding.

[Dexter]

Ah, but we ARE murdering people.  By the thousands.

Ergo, the confusion as to what you were trying to say.

It was befuddled, and therefore lent itself to misunderstanding.

I will try to be more clear in the future. I had no idea that what I said was so incredibly complicated and difficult to understand.

[rb224315]

Who other than him didn't understand that I was not saying we are actively bombing Middle Eastern cities relentlessly? Who didn't understand that I wasn't saying we are currently murdering anybody? Just in the bit he quoted above I clearly said "would be murder." If I was talking about something we were actually doing right now I would have said "is murder." Saying "would be" implies that we are not actually doing it right now. I was clear; it's not my responsibility to break it down to a 5th grade level so certain people can understand what is being said in the conversation.

Fair enough, I misunderstood you.   

If we are not currently doing these things--murdering & relentlessly bombing--what, then, is the Islamic world's beef with the West, and the US specifically?  Wouldn't the current lack of murder & bombing mean that terrorism achieved its goal and there is no reason to continue terror attacks against the West?

[Relic]

I will try to be more clear in the future. I had no idea that what I said was so incredibly complicated and difficult to understand.

Hey, at least you have passive aggressive down pat. When your toolbox is nearly empty, you use what you've got, right?