Author Topic: OK, lets armwrestle.  (Read 1238 times)

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,463
OK, lets armwrestle.
« on: July 12, 2006, 07:28:47 PM »
A quiet introsopective look at terrorism:

!.  Is there a reasonable explaination?
2.  Why?
3.  After considering why, what then?
4.  Is there a political answer or is it otherwise?
5.  Should there actually be a repsonse?
6.  If so, what should that response be?

Wondering in White Cloud.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2006, 11:42:01 PM »
Which particular terrorists are we talking about?

To add to your question - are assassinations, bombings and the like aimed purely at political entities and their associated military bodies acts of terrorism? By that I mean are they the same as flying civilian jets into civilian buildings, or bombing subways? What if I were talking about some radical group of anti-Kim Jong-Il terrorists attacking the North Korean government?
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2006, 02:05:42 AM »
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

Tough questions grampster. I'll mull them over for a while.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2006, 02:58:52 AM »
1.  Yes, they are weak and we are strong, thus they use terrorism.  Only logical;

2.  see above;

3.  The weak will use terrorism until it proves unprofitable or until they can move the fight into the next phase of warfare (guerilla war);

4.   Potentially, Islam needs a Reformation, whether that can come externally as is being attempted in Iraq or must come from within remains to be seen;

5.  Yes;

6.  The response to terrorism is extreme violence.  You find them and you kill them, all of them.
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2006, 03:10:57 AM »
I'll go with El T, I couldn't answer them any better.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

vaskidmark

  • National Anthem Snob
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,799
  • WTF?
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2006, 04:26:28 AM »
!.  Is there a reasonable explaination?
From whose perspective are you looking for an answer?

Both sides have put forth "explanations," and they are "reasonable" to the side putting them forth but uncomprehensible jibberish to the other side.

2.  Why?

Following convention, the PRO side followed by the CON side:

because Allah ordains it; because westerners are "corrupting" (whatever that means) our religion; because westerners are invading our lands; because westerners are "corrupting" our culture/heritage/way of life

because they target innocent persons; because they "threaten" our culture/heritage/way of life; because we need to bring democracy to those who do not have it

3.  After considering why, what then?

Side A: we continue until the enemy is defeated and victory is ours.

Side B: see above

4.  Is there a political answer or is it otherwise?

Yes.  (Sorry, but I could not resist.)

When you inquire of a political resolution you are asking if there is any possible compromise or consensus available between two groups who are diametrically opposed to each other.

The alternative is neither acceptable to, nor in the best political interests of the two main western parties (USA & Great Britain), as that is the complete and utter defeat by destruction of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and perhaps Timor in the short term, and the eradication of Islam in the long term.

To play Devil's Advocate, consider if the USA had carried the war against the Native American Indians to its logical conclusion.  Would the country be better off, all things considered, if there were no "pesky redskins" to contend with any more?  Then consider if the country would have an easier time of carrying out its economic and political agendae both internally and internationally.

5.  Should there actually be a repsonse?

One side wants to utterly and completely destroy the other side.  They have G_d, justice, and moral right on their side.

One side is swatting at a pesky mosquito without currently thinking about the necessity of reintroducing DDT use, but could if it wanted to.  They have G_D, justice, and moral right on their side.

6.  If so, what should that response be?

Both sides should be sent to their rooms, where they are to sit and quietly reflect on what they have done and how it has made the other side feel.  They should write a poem that expresses how they feel.  After dinner they should meet, along with their parents, and everybody should apologize and hug everybody else, then go out together for ice cream.

Alternatively, either side will end up dragging the other back into the Stone Age.  It's just a question of how fast and how much radioactivity you want mixed with your oil.

++++++++++++++++++++++

I remember once, when I was feeling very discouraged, that someone told me: "Cheer up.  Things could be worse."

So I cheered up,

And you know what?  They were right!

Things got worse.

Ever since then, I've stopped being a pessimist.  I am the most optomistic person ever to walk the face of the earth.  I go aroulnd expecting crap to happen, and I am never disappointed.

You need to know that before I tell you the following:

I'm betting everything on the west.

stay safe.

skidmark
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Hey you kids!! Get off my lawn!!!

They keep making this eternal vigilance thing harder and harder.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is like playing PACMAN - there's no pause button so you can go to the bathroom.

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2006, 06:37:36 AM »
1.  Is there a reasonable explaination?

Pretty well covered. Terrorism is "Assymetrical Warfare", it's what people angry enough to conduct war, but find themselves without Tanks, Jets (except for the ones they hijack), or CVN's do.

2.  Why?

The modern world and Western culture is on the brink of reaching the saturation point, and will eventualy undermine the fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, and the theocratic states they want to establish. Mixed up into that is a toxic brew of their repressive societies, and the unhealthy Middle-Eastern schizoid dichotomy of extreme machismo combined with fragile ego. There is also a historical worldview between Islam Vs. the West that goes back to Rome Vs. Persia that they see as very real, and continued through to the Crusades, and the Ottoman Empire. OTOH, the West sees these episodes as "old news" and discrete events from their worldview, but the Islamist sees them as one continuous struggle.

3.  After considering why, what then?

What we're doing now. Fight them. Inteligence, direct military action against supportive states, diplomatic/political action against other terrorist supportive states.

4.  Is there a political answer or is it otherwise?

It's both, see above.

5.  Should there actually be a repsonse?

Yes. Ignoring it like we did during the Clinton admin and even way back in the Reagan admin (Lebanon Marine Barracks, WTC bombing #1, African embassy bombings, USS Cole etc.) only got us 9/11.

6.  If so, what should that response be?

See above, rinse lather repeat. While we will see some success, ultimately, it's a holding action until modern Western culture invades to the point that those people aren't interested in Islamofascisim anymore.
I promise not to duck.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2006, 10:15:28 AM »
I'd recommend y'all read Thomas Hammes "The Sling and The Stone".  Very insightful look at terrorism and 4th Gen. warfare.

He talks about the dissolution of many of the artificial states created in the post-colonial era being fueled in part by the spread of information tech.  With radio, TV and internet available to even the most poor peasantry, who formerly never saw or heard anything beyond thier village, the whole world has been opened, exposing their relative deprivation and eliminating the traditional government monopoly of info (state run tv, radio etc.).  This can lead to unrest and dissatisfaction with poor governance.

With artificial borders seperating true nations and tribes and the loss of state legitimacy to enforce them, the people naturally revert to older social organizations: tribe, clan or gang.  Now, when we have to go into those areas, we aren't fighting other state armies made up of soldiers (disciplined professionals under political control who don't have any real financial or moral incentive to go to war).  We're fighting warrior societies.

Warrior societies exist solely to fight.  What does a Somali clansman or Afghani tribesman have to do when the guns get put down?  Nothing, no pay and no prestige, so no food, property or women.  Throw in the Arab or Palestinian kid in his slum.  When he's fighting the West or Israel he's got a job and some personal standing and he's not sitting around making trouble for the powers-that-be.  Throw in religious teaching giving moral absolution for one's actions and a promise of reward in eternity and why would the warrior ever lay down his gun?

The old traditional clan methods of limiting fighting don't work in a broken society when mixed with modern weapons.  The old clan and tribe organizations were never designed to take on the myriad political, social and financial consequences of a failed state.  So there's no short term domestic fix likely for those failed states.

As a result of the reality of the current and foreseeable continuing effective American (Western) monopoly on 3rd Gen. warfare, no other states, nations (of people), or trans-national organizations (al-Quaeda to Greenpeace) can be expected to take us on in that way.  Unless they are insane.  So they go 4th gen. as suits their strengths, cyberwar for the high-tech, suicide bombs for the low.  Use cultural differences, such as the Western distaste for killing women and children was used by the Somali clan gunmen.  Call for negotiations as a means to get your political message out with no real intent to change your position one iota (N. Vietnam to the IRA to Hamas).

We can continue to kill them at a disproportionate rate but that, in 4th gen warfare, is irrelevent.  We need to find a better way.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Shalako

  • New Member
  • Posts: 59
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2006, 04:07:15 PM »
What's actually the goal of terrorism? I understand that since they can't match us on the traditional battlefield, they have to resort to terrorism and guerilla tactics. But they will never win in a war of attrition with those tactics. The only outcomes the terrorists can hope for are:
1. We will get sick of the terrorist attacks and surrender
2. They will acquire a weapon powerful enough to do real damage to us
3. They will incite a global war and usher in armagedon

Terrorism seems kind of futile in the big picture unless they can actually do #2 or #3.


And how many terrorists can you kill before the number of enraged bystanders becoming new terrorists exceeds the number you just killed? I need a non-linear optimization algorithm for that one...

Shalako

  • New Member
  • Posts: 59
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2006, 04:20:58 PM »
Maybe there is one more thing a terrorist can hope for:
4. When we retaliate, they get enough sympathizers to overpower us?

It seems like a real lack of critical thinking there if they'd die for that slim hope, but they keep getting more sympathizers (like Sheehan, Ratboy, the ACLU, Turban Durbin, Murtha, China, Russia etc.) so maybe they are onto something....

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,463
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2006, 04:56:28 PM »
So, we have 15th century tribal fuedalism, mixing in a warped religious perspective (Wahabism) square against modern 21st century progressive liberalism.  Yes, progressive liberalism in the form of statism;  look around, America and most Western countries and even some upgraded 3rd worlders in Central and South America are socialist states, which is what modern liberalism is all about.  Libertine statist societies.  

America is the primary target because we have most successfully displayed this seeming contradiction.  But at the same time, America is guilt ridden because of it.  The guilt is formulated in our schools and with our music, literature and the drive by media.  The terrorists are fanning this guilt by driving wedges between us and our slowly diminishing allies around the world.  They are doing this by pointing out our wealth and at the same time commiting acts of violence every where but America.  They say "See, if it were not for those Americans, this would not be happening to you."    And our duped media and intellectual literati reinforce this message by instilling even more guilt by saying to us that we ARE at fault.  Divide and conquer; an old but effective tactic.  Lincoln said it best.  "A house divided will not stand."

They are formenting envy and guilt in the West because they see this increasing envy and guilt, coupled with the slaughter of women and children (for whom they have no regard whatsoever) that they incite by the way,  as a long term blow to the economies of the West.  That is how they bring us down.  Divide us, take away our bread and games.  The barbarians have succeeded in doing that in the past.  History has a troubling habit of confirming that.

The only solution to the problem of terrorism is to turn their methodology back upon them.  America, and the West, need to marginalize the economic stranglehold Wahabist societies in the Middle East hold.  The only way out of this is to take away their money and invest the folks they have in thrall to throw off their yoke.  How do we do that?   Well, first there needs to be a will to proceed.  I wonder if we have that?  Milton Freidman said that when we brought down Saddam in Iraq, we should have given equal shares in their oil riches to every manjack in the country; Shia, Turk and Sunni.  If the people equally owned the oil, rather than the gooberment, there would be no reason to squabble amongst themselves and they'd very rapidly use their own methodolgies to boot out or kill the foreign terrorists.  A'stan, I'm sure, has resources of their own that should be vested in the people.

We need to seriously ramp up the exploitation of old and new energy resources anywhere there is no Islamofascist foothold.  Use up what we have while encouraging new sources.  Money talks and bullshit walks.  Technology today gives us the opportunity to be Green as well as exploitive.  The Western Hemisphere needs to become energy independent and promote the progress of the Western Hemishphere by convincing those in the West that our ways are superior and better for all.   Teddy Roosevelt's comment, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" has implications far beyond  the threat that his comment is customarily thought to mean.  It bespeaks protection and a hand up as well.  In other words to Venezuala for example, we need to softly say the stick is not for you, it is rather available to protect you and help you stand up and get to where you need to be.  Let us trade and coexist.  In the long run, dismantling the trade barriers in the Western Hemisphere is not only a good idea, it is absolutely necessary.  We, as a nation, need to begin to think beyond our 4 year Jeep lease and have a vision for 100 years from now.   Parochialism in the West is no longer viable.  Too many people and too much information out there today.  Your grandchildren may not find their fortune in Indiana, but carve it out of the jungles and fruited plaines of Mexico, Central and South America.

It is truly all about energy folks.  We need to expend whatever energy is neccessary to make it so we can leave the Wahabists to their own just deserts; which is to marginalize and ignore them.  Let them have what they want, isolation.  If we make them cash poor, they won't stray far from the hut and goats.  Those that wish to throw off the yoke of Wahabist Jihad, are welcome to join us.

On the one hand we destroy Wahabist Islam by killing millions or we marginalize them by destroying their wealth by using our vastly superior technologies and the engine of freedom.

That will take will, courage and progressive leaders that can move us forward together rather than further dividing us.  I don't see any of that at the moment, unfortunately.  Our institutions have cranked out too many potato heads.  Maybe our future leaders should come from the world of reality rather than sycophantic products of our corrupted institutions of higher learning.  We need some common folks with common sense, vision, bravery, and the will to do what is right and be able to communicate that.  It ain't in Washington now, and the horizon is not crammed full of candidates.

 Hell, I'll do it.  Write me in in 2008.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,463
OK, lets armwrestle.
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2006, 05:09:31 PM »
jeez, I thought I had a pretty good post here.  So I'm bumping back up for more comment.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw