Thread: UK is Al-Qaeda Number One Target.

Originally Posted by pdf27

Anyone can quote selectively...

As opposed to the qoutes in the koran. The bible(new testiment) does not advocate murdering those of different faiths. There really is a difference between having/carrying a sword, and proactively hacking off the heads of people who share a different belief. It took christian churches a century or so to get the message Jesus was saying, but the enlightenment has begun.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Let's start a fire...sing a couple of songs...

I apprieciate the humour - but not what I was meaning. My problem is that there has been no real guiding strategy from the very beginning of this war.

Case in point - A-stan. I am, and always have been, 100% behind that war. It was clear cut and initially well executed - airpower, special forces and supplies to local allies on the ground (not to mention hefty bribes). And it worked extremely well.

Then, at the cusp of victory, we decide to have a different war. A war that has diverted attention from A-stan and AQ and OBL, a war that has destroyed any international consensus on terrorism. A war that could have waited cuz we ignore much worse human rights violation and far more credible WMD programs.

There is no strategy or, if there was one, it has failed miserably.

Looking at the history of terrorism, limited as it is, no one has defeated through raw military force. That doesn't mean that such force cannot be an element of a successful strategy, nor does it mean that the threat of force cannot deter some nations from becoming sponsors of terrorism. But it is not the only way.

We have all the military power in the world to achieve our ends. But those ends are not served by occupying other nations. The Nazis, with all their extreme retailation and utter brutality, were never able to quell the French resistance, nor the Russian partisans, nor the Yugoslavs. The Israelis have spent close to 40 years struggling with this problem in the occupied territories. They have never shirked from force, and yet they have failed.

The solution must be diplomatic in part. (Or else exterminate every last Muslim). We need to find a way to separate the vast majority of Islam from this minority. We need to start winning the propaganda war, a war which we are losing. If we separate the majority from the minority, then and only then do we have a chance. As in N Ireland, once people became reconciled to the peace process; the ill-informed, easily lead majority will follow.

As to how we do this with disparate Islam - that is more difficult. The hard choice but the best choice, imo, is to ultimately withdraw fully from the Middle East. Strong-arm (if necessary) Israel into a land-for-peace deal.

I know the geo-political and possible economic problems that this might cause. But the sad fact is, we only give a crap about the Mid-East because of the oil. Oil that will run out some day in the Mid-East anyway. So the pain from this will come in the future, whether we like it or not. So we take that hit now. We find alternatives - bio-fuels, oil-shale, renewables, nuke power. We break this destructive co-dependency.

Should some super-Caliphate emerge from the Mid-East, we defeat it on the battlefield in the way that we are most suited to fight. Or we contain it with our nuke arsenal and subvert it with our positive economic and politcal models. We stop selling them f*cking weapons.

I dont have all (or even any of the answers). I'm not adverse to tough choices. But there seems to be no debate as to how we can - in the long-term - win this war.

Originally Posted by PubFather

I apprieciate the humour - but not what I was meaning. My problem is that there has been no real guiding strategy from the very beginning of this war.

Case in point - A-stan. I am, and always have been, 100% behind that war. It was clear cut and initially well executed - airpower, special forces and supplies to local allies on the ground (not to mention hefty bribes). And it worked extremely well.

Then, at the cusp of victory, we decide to have a different war. A war that has diverted attention from A-stan and AQ and OBL, a war that has destroyed any international consensus on terrorism. A war that could have waited cuz we ignore much worse human rights violation and far more credible WMD programs.

There is no strategy or, if there was one, it has failed miserably.

Looking at the history of terrorism, limited as it is, no one has defeated through raw military force. That doesn't mean that such force cannot be an element of a successful strategy, nor does it mean that the threat of force cannot deter some nations from becoming sponsors of terrorism. But it is not the only way.

We have all the military power in the world to achieve our ends. But those ends are not served by occupying other nations. The Nazis, with all their extreme retailation and utter brutality, were never able to quell the French resistance, nor the Russian partisans, nor the Yugoslavs. The Israelis have spent close to 40 years struggling with this problem in the occupied territories. They have never shirked from force, and yet they have failed.

The solution must be diplomatic in part. (Or else exterminate every last Muslim). We need to find a way to separate the vast majority of Islam from this minority. We need to start winning the propaganda war, a war which we are losing. If we separate the majority from the minority, then and only then do we have a chance. As in N Ireland, once people became reconciled to the peace process; the ill-informed, easily lead majority will follow.

As to how we do this with disparate Islam - that is more difficult. The hard choice but the best choice, imo, is to ultimately withdraw fully from the Middle East. Strong-arm (if necessary) Israel into a land-for-peace deal.

I know the geo-political and possible economic problems that this might cause. But the sad fact is, we only give a crap about the Mid-East because of the oil. Oil that will run out some day in the Mid-East anyway. So the pain from this will come in the future, whether we like it or not. So we take that hit now. We find alternatives - bio-fuels, oil-shale, renewables, nuke power. We break this destructive co-dependency.

Should some super-Caliphate emerge from the Mid-East, we defeat it on the battlefield in the way that we are most suited to fight. Or we contain it with our nuke arsenal and subvert it with our positive economic and politcal models. We stop selling them f*cking weapons.

I dont have all (or even any of the answers). I'm not adverse to tough choices. But there seems to be no debate as to how we can - in the long-term - win this war.

Meant to add, intelligence is essential to all of this...

The problem is that many islamic factions do not want peace with Isreal. The very existance of Isreal is an insult and an abomination. There will be no lasting diplomatic peace unless Isreal picks up stakes and moves to antarctica and even then some suicidal idiot would want to bomb Antarctica just to kill a few jews. The core of the problem is not political. It is religion.

Seperating the fanatics from the moderates is a promising idea, but is most difficult because the depth that religion has in their lives.

For AQ, the UK is our Italy - i.e. an important ally they think they can cow and crush and cause to leave our side.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

For AQ, the UK is our Italy - i.e. an important ally they think they can cow and crush and cause to leave our side.

-dale

Yep. That is there way. I hope the U.K. knows that however they decide to handle their muslim problem, both in and outside their borders, may very well be a key in how the rest of the europeans handle the situation.