Snowden is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Fitz]

Also, regarding the ROE... You've served, so surely you know that a squad indiscriminately killing a large group to take out one guy is not right, nor allowed... And no one wants it to be. When we complain about the ROE and EOF, we are generally bemoaning the procedures we have to take for an ESTABLISHED hostile act

[White Horseradish]

I still would like to know how we would know when to stop.

[Fitz]

Why do you hate America, achmed?

[TommyGunn]

The irony of your position is hilarious Tommygunn

We will do anything we can, including killing innocents, to bring to justice those killing innocents.


Meanwhile, troops get investigated over accidents, but the drones and whatnot can PURPOSELY destroy a party of people because of one HVT.

If a marine squad did it, they'd be in jail

But hey

At least we still have the moral high ground against those terrorists

I  am *expletive deleted* happy that my position is so hilarious to you.   I'm not enjoying the idea of killing innocents, I am trying to get across that when you prosecute a war, CRAP HAPPENS.  

Is there any action in your mind that we are unjustified in taking? We have a "war" on terror, so you don't care if we blow innocent people up in countries we have no declared hostility toward. Is there anything you would object to? You keep referring to Dresden: shall we just kill every living person in every Middle Eastern country? Would that be an acceptable final solution, in your mind?

We do have a declared hostility (not a declaration of war .... but Congress did take a vote) on AQ.   I bring up Dresden for a purpose, yet it seems NO ONE seems to understand why.  
There's thing's I would object to in the pursuit of war.
Not attacking the terrorists when we locate them.
Aiding and abetting the enemy.
The countries we have "no declared hostilities to" are harboring the people who we do consider hostiles.  Would you have us declare war on Pakistan because they are harboring Taliban elements?  
Is that a practical solution in your mind?   I mean, we've known they're there for a long time and really, we didn't do very much about them until some scheisskopf decided to put a Hellfire missile on a Predator Drone, which heretofor was basically an airborne mobile recon platform.  
What we should have done was to prevent the Taliban from bugging out of A'stan .... guess Dubya couldn't have bothered to have the forces necessary to do that over there.

Given how the confusion and the "Fog of War" has complicated past wars, overall I think it is a minor miracle that this country has won the wars it did win.  There are several scenarios I can think of in which we would have lost the Revolutionary War, and others, as well.   IMHO we did lose the Vietnam War even though we won most every engagement on the ground.  We did not obtain our objective over there.   Whatever the reason, military...political...social, pick your choice.

We're gonna be damned lucky if we can break even in this current war.   A great deal has been done that has endangered our rights, but I see that as a reason to win the damned war and then set right what's wrong.  
It's easy to worry about what the NSA has done, but some here should be happy Abraham Lincoln did not have the NSA or the ELINT capacities it possesses.   He suspended habeus corpus, had newspapers shut down, had a recalcitrant kongresskritter deported to Canada, and instituted a number of other debasements of the U.S. Constitution.   Much of that was corrected after the war.

[Fitz]

You seem to be under the impression that this stuff is reversible. Not so. When was the last time a major overstep of fed authority was reversed?

Hint: not recently at all.

you live in a nation of moronic, lazy shitheads. That's why we need to expose and fight these oversteps, not allow them in the name of "OMG TERRORISM" then attempt to roll them back later.

[TommyGunn]

What you think we should be doing is not relevant. What is relevant is what we are doing, and according to our leadership we are fighting a Global War on Terror(TM). You say that this is not an unwinnable war. Tell me how it can be won, how we would know when to stop.

Ah, so it's a war on Jihadism, is it? Ok. Jihadism is the belief in armed jihad. Tell me, how can a war against a belief be won?

To the first part, I believe I have dealt with it.  If you do not wish to consider my opinion "relevant" fine, I shall return the favor in kind.
"Jihadism" is the concept of fighting a religious war, a war with the goal of expanding the religious footprint of, in this case, Islam.  It is a great deal more than just a simple belief.  You fight it by fighting the Jihadis, and killing them.

What things, exactly, do they have that we can break?  How many of them do we kill? Is it, even in theory, possible to kill them all?

Take a wild guess what things should be broken.   And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are.   It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.

EDIT:

Check out this medal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal

What war is this, again?  

Oh friggin' woopeee they put that inane phrase "Global War Against Terror" on a medal so we're NOT really fighting AQ & Taliban.      

[TommyGunn]

You seem to be under the impression that this stuff is reversible. Not so. When was the last time a major overstep of fed authority was reversed?

Hint: not recently at all.

you live in a nation of moronic, lazy shitheads. That's why we need to expose and fight these oversteps, not allow them in the name of "OMG TERRORISM" then attempt to roll them back later.

Unless you count the Church Commitee.

I bet they thought what Lincoln did was ireversible too.  Especially after the effects of Reconstruction became known.

Fitz, if we really are a bunch of lazy moronic shitheads, it's lost.  We won't be able to fix it either now or later.
Better hope you're wrong.

[cordex]

Nor do I see any comparison between how some Afghani villager perceives out .... "intrusion" into their country to hypothetical intrusions by some foreign entities into our country for putatively similar motives.

Why not?

 I bring up Dresden for a purpose, yet it seems NO ONE seems to understand why. 

First of all, I've always understood the firebombing of Dresden to have been a British campaign.  Pretty sure that the US general in charge maintained targeted daylight bombings because of his vehement opposition to the idea of haphazardly bombing civilian targets in the dark.

Secondly, the situation today is completely dissimilar to WWII.  Resorting to desperation measures like firebombing and dropping nuclear weapons on civilian centers and the Vergeltungswaffen campaigns on the other side are not techniques that really carry over well to the strong side of asymmetric warfare.  When you are fighting for the survival of your nation, you can make the argument that dropping bombs on civilian targets - accidentally or intentionally - might be a legitimate technique to reduce the will and warmaking capability of your enemy.  And if you win the war, you might not even be prosecuted for your war crimes.  In the conflict we have today, wiping out a village to kill some visiting bad guys is more likely to radicalize additional enemies rather than force the nebulous force who doesn't necessarily care about that village anyway to sue for peace.

The countries we have "no declared hostilities to" are harboring the people who we do consider hostiles.  Would you have us declare war on Pakistan because they are harboring Taliban elements? 

That's the problem.  You want to fight today's war with last century's techniques which by any right should require a declaration of war on the nations we are bombing.
 

What we should have done was to prevent the Taliban from bugging out of A'stan .... guess Dubya couldn't have bothered to have the forces necessary to do that over there.

Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Again.  Even if the US war machine were even capable of sealing off the Afghanistan in the way you propose (and if you've ever seen topographic maps of the 1,600ish miles of Pakistan/Afghanistan border you would be wise to doubt our ability to do so) I would venture to say that the cost to the US taxpayer would make the budget for the war to date look like pocket change.

Take a wild guess what things should be broken.   And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are.   It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.

When you blow up a bunch of innocent people to kill an enemy, you often end up with more enemies than you started with.

[TommyGunn]

Why not?
First of all, I've always understood the firebombing of Dresden to have been a British campaign.  Pretty sure that the US general in charge maintained targeted daylight bombings because of his vehement opposition to the idea of haphazardly bombing civilian targets in the dark.

Secondly, the situation today is completely dissimilar to WWII.  Resorting to desperation measures like firebombing and dropping nuclear weapons on civilian centers and the Vergeltungswaffen campaigns on the other side are not techniques that really carry over well to the strong side of asymmetric warfare.  When you are fighting for the survival of your nation, you can make the argument that dropping bombs on civilian targets - accidentally or intentionally - might be a legitimate technique to reduce the will and warmaking capability of your enemy.  And if you win the war, you might not even be prosecuted for your war crimes.  In the conflict we have today, wiping out a village to kill some visiting bad guys is more likely to radicalize additional enemies rather than force the nebulous force who doesn't necessarily care about that village anyway to sue for peace.
That's the problem.  You want to fight today's war with last century's techniques which by any right should require a declaration of war on the nations we are bombing.
 Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Again.  Even if the US war machine were even capable of sealing off the Afghanistan in the way you propose (and if you've ever seen topographic maps of the 1,600ish miles of Pakistan/Afghanistan border you would be wise to doubt our ability to do so) I would venture to say that the cost to the US taxpayer would make the budget for the war to date look like pocket change.
When you blow up a bunch of innocent people to kill an enemy, you often end up with more enemies than you started with.

Yeah  *sigh*  since I have, obviously, "no idea what I'm talking about," why is everyone so F'n' bothered by what I'm saying. Guess I don't knbow how to fight this war, you guys don't, the U.S. govt. doesn't, the military can't without blowing up innocent people, so let's just pack it all in.

 Good bye and faretheewell.

[White Horseradish]

Why do you hate America, achmed?

Михаил, actually. :)

"Jihadism" is the concept of fighting a religious war, a war with the goal of expanding the religious footprint of, in this case, Islam.  It is a great deal more than just a simple belief.  You fight it by fighting the Jihadis, and killing them.

It's not a belief, it's a concept. Got it. And you fight it by killing the people that subscribe to it.

Can you point out a concept that has been defeated by killing people who believe in it?  Ever?

Take a wild guess what things should be broken.   And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are. 

These guys live in tents and caves. They don't own things that are all that valuable. We can't destroy their industry or their economy. What is there for us to break that will impact them?

It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.

How do we know that this has happened?

Oh friggin' woopeee they put that inane phrase "Global War Against Terror" on a medal so we're NOT really fighting AQ & Taliban.     

So the Commander in Chief says this is what we are fighting. You disagree. Clearly, what you say goes.

Er... What?

You fight it by fighting the Jihadis, and killing them.

You are constantly answering a question I did not ask and completely ignoring a question I did ask, several times.

Once again:HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN TO STOP FIGHTING?

[dogmush]

Take a wild guess what things should be broken.   And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are.   It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.

Islamic terrorism is not now, nor has it been, an existential threat to the United States of America. 

The can, if they're lucky, kill some Americans, and we should try to limit those occurrences, but to pretend that Islamic terrorism is even remotely capable of existentially threatening the USA would be laughable if it wasn't so often packaged with delusional fear justifying atrocities. *

*Not saying you personally, Tommygunn, but every .gov official that has used that phrase in the last 12 years was using it to bludgeon dissent against some US overreach or atrocity.  It's a clear sign in a conversation.

[Fitz]

Oh!!! Prevent the bad guys from bugging out of Afghanistan?

Maybe when we finished that, we could have convinced the democrats to lower taxes, the Republicans to love abortion, and congress to get along with each other

You know, since we're clearly talking about fantasy at this point

[cordex]

Oh!!! Prevent the bad guys from bugging out of Afghanistan?

Maybe when we finished that, we could have convinced the democrats to lower taxes, the Republicans to love abortion, and congress to get along with each other

You know, since we're clearly talking about fantasy at this point

Just line up everyone in the military who can carry a rifle shoulder to shoulder along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and start marching northwest killing any terrorists or wedding parties they come across, and firebombing any Dresdens they see.

Easy.

Heck, while they are at it they might as well sweep across Iran, give Iraq another pass and clean up Syria and Lebanon. If they are feeling impolitic they can take a walk through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and go back to give Pakistan a run. Easy as that. Terrorism would surrender.

[roo_ster]

Be careful not to match fallacy with fallacy when countering TG.

1. Yes, you can practically end the threat from adherents to an ideology.

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. “What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? ” the one asked.

The second replied, “Well, they were both founded by Spaniards — St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy — the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.”

“What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?”

“Met any Albigensians lately?”

The question is not "Can we forever remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"  The question is, "Are we willing to do what is necessary to  remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"


2. Yes, orthodox Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.  This says more about the moral weakness of Western Civ than it does about orthodox Islam's strength. 

It would be cheaper and make more sense to wage war against W Civ's internal rot.  Yes, that includes warring on much of the libertine agenda and the suicide pact of "tolerance."  For libertines, half of a libertine loaf is better than the bitter harvest they will reap when they succeed and thoroughly enervate Western Civ.

[mtnbkr]

Be careful not to match fallacy with fallacy when countering TG.

1. Yes, you can practically end the threat from adherents to an ideology.

The question is not "Can we forever remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"  The question is, "Are we willing to do what is necessary to  remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"


2. Yes, orthodox Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.  This says more about the moral weakness of Western Civ than it does about orthodox Islam's strength. 

It would be cheaper and make more sense to wage war against W Civ's internal rot.  Yes, that includes warring on much of the libertine agenda and the suicide pact of "tolerance."  For libertines, half of a libertine loaf is better than the bitter harvest they will reap when they succeed and thoroughly enervate Western Civ.

I don't believe it is Orthodox Islam that is the threat, but the primitive tribal types who use Orthodox Islam as the excuse and vehicle to attack the West.  I have a few coworkers from that region.  To hear them talk, religion is only part of the problem.  The main issue is an ancient culture that requires revenge for any slight.

Every time we bomb a wedding party to kill one "high value target", we give a whole bunch of people reason to hate us.  Along comes an imam with an answer in the form of "join our sect and you get to kill infidels" and you now have 20 new "terrorists".

It's human nature coupled with a culture that believes in revenge for any slight.  This goes beyond Islam.  As long as we're in their homeland, killing their people, we'll never run out of primitive tribal types who want to kill us.  Orthodox Islam merely gives them the vehicle.

Chris

[cordex]

The question is not "Can we forever remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"  The question is, "Are we willing to do what is necessary to  remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"

I'm not sure if you are actually advocating anything specific, but it is my fervent hope that he answer to your second question and the implied campaign of terror behind it remains "No!"

[Tallpine]

It would be cheaper and make more sense to wage war against W Civ's internal rot.  Yes, that includes warring on much of the libertine agenda and the suicide pact of "tolerance."  For libertines, half of a libertine loaf is better than the bitter harvest they will reap when they succeed and thoroughly enervate Western Civ.

So - if we make the wimenz wear burkas then we will have defeated the Jihadists 

[Bigjake]

What we should have done was to prevent the Taliban from bugging out of A'stan .... guess Dubya couldn't have bothered to have the forces necessary to do that over there.

Picking nits,  but have you ever looked at a topo map of Afghanistan?  We couldn't keep moonshiners from bugging out of Kentucky,  Keeping the Hajis from going wherever they want is a pipe dream.

[TommyGunn]

It's not a belief, it's a concept. Got it. And you fight it by killing the people that subscribe to it.

Can you point out a concept that has been defeated by killing people who believe in it?  Ever?

What is the difference between concept & belief that is earth-shakingly important in  the context of this thread?
You claim we fight it by killing those who subscribe to it ...... then ask what concept has been defeated by killing those same people.  This is a little bizarre and contradictory, to me.
So you can't kill concepts and beliefs.  There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts, but no one says they are a threat to us.  You can still buy Hitler's Mein Kampf in bookstores (well, not in Germany maybe) but few worry about it and consider it only a historical artifact of a brutal dictator.

These guys live in tents and caves. They don't own things that are all that valuable. We can't destroy their industry or their economy. What is there for us to break that will impact them?  

Haven't you ever heard of the bromide that the "purpose of an army is to kill the enemy & break their things?"
I guess not.
Obviously if AQ doesn't have an industrial complex you can't bomb it into oblivion, but you can still kill the people.
Surely you don't need my feeble input to figure that amazingly difficult concept.  

How do we know that this has happened?

Certainly there must be someone up in military intel....somewhere....state dept. (Ack!)  that can recognize the end of a war when he(she) sees it.  How did we know WW2 was over?  Right, that little shindig aboard that battleship in Tokyo Bay.  
I believe there will be some tell, IMHO.  I don't know what it is.
Not that it matters, our illustrious Leader, Obama, has declared victory and is going to save the day by returning our soldiers home in the not too distant future.

So the Commander in Chief says this is what we are fighting. You disagree. Clearly, what you say goes.

The cmdr in chief was engaging in something called rhetoric.  I was not engaging in something called rhetoric .... though I might as well have been for all the good it does me here.
P.S.; the Commander-in-Chief is a boob.

Er... What?
You are constantly answering a question I did not ask and completely ignoring a question I did ask, several times.

Once again:HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN TO STOP FIGHTING?

Jehovah God will send his only begotten Son down from Heaven to instruct us when the fighting will stop.

Seriously, dealt with that one above.
I wonder if Patton knew when "the fighting would stop"?  I mean....someone gave him a date certain?  
Oooooops, there I go with that WW2 stuff again, gotta watch that.  
Because we all know we can't ever learn a thing from history, right?

 

[TommyGunn]

Picking nits,  but have you ever looked at a topo map of Afghanistan?  We couldn't keep moonshiners from bugging out of Kentucky,  Keeping the Hajis from going wherever they want is a pipe dream.

We never applied our full modern military to stop moonshiners.
I've seen enough maps of A'stan to realize what a BIG JOB it would have been.  With modern airpower it might be close to possible to do something we did along the U.S. / Mexico border in WW1.
Would we catch every Haji?   I doubt it.   
Anyway, it's far too late to worry over this now.

[TommyGunn]

Islamic terrorism is not now, nor has it been, an existential threat to the United States of America.  

The can, if they're lucky, kill some Americans, and we should try to limit those occurrences, but to pretend that Islamic terrorism is even remotely capable of existentially threatening the USA would be laughable if it wasn't so often packaged with delusional fear justifying atrocities. *

*Not saying you personally, Tommygunn, but every .gov official that has used that phrase in the last 12 years was using it to bludgeon dissent against some US overreach or atrocity.  It's a clear sign in a conversation.

As long as there are those struggling for their world caliphate, they surely will be a threat to our existance. 

I can't help but be reminded what some religions say about the Devil and what his most grandiose accomplishment was; convincing the people that he did not exist.

That way he can more easily separate us from Jesus and the Lord and defeat Heaven's minions.

Not that I think that the Islamists are trying to convince us they don't exist....
I think a lot of people here refuse to believe that they pose any threat to us.   Some believe that threat comes only from blowing up train stations  and flying 767s into buildings.  There's hard war and then there is soft war, and for those who don't understand the difference I recommend looking it up. 
The Islamists are engaging in a soft war in europe and so far it is largely working.   That is not a reference to a few bombs at train stations and whatever, it's a reference to something very different.

They are also engaging in a soft war here.
But most of us are neither aware of it, or are doing anything to counter it.

[Scout26]

How to win:  
1)  Declare it over.
2)  Get out.
3)  Stop Immigration from those countries/areas of the world that spawn terrorists.  (or at least screen them better)
4)  Stop illegal immigration and deport those illegals already here.  (Mexico does it on their southern border, why can't we?)
5)  Grow a pair and go back to the Eisenhower Doctrine of Massive Retaliation.
6)  Stop spying on Americans and prevent the NSA from doing it anymore and implement Ben's suggestions.  Their annual performance reviews should be nothing but stinging criticism from those they are assigned to "for not allowing them to have any fun".
7)  Reduce the budget of all .gov entities by 10% a year for at least 5 years.  (and eliminate the BATFEIO, TSA, and a few more DHS entities, put Customs back under Treasury (they are a revenue function, not an LEA).   The USCG back to Transportation.  And Border Patrol to Justice. (with the mandate of quick deportation of illegals.)  

Let them screw goats, camels and little boys while blowing up each other in their own lands.      

 

[TommyGunn]

OK, I am officially endorsing Scout26's suggestion for how to win. 

[White Horseradish]

What is the difference between concept & belief that is earth-shakingly important in  the context of this thread?

You tell me. You are the one that brought it up. I was perfectly happy calling it a belief.

You claim we fight it by killing those who subscribe to it

No. You claim we fight it that way. If you can't remember your own words, look up the thread.

So you can't kill concepts and beliefs.  There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts, but no one says they are a threat to us.  You can still buy Hitler's Mein Kampf in bookstores (well, not in Germany maybe) but few worry about it and consider it only a historical artifact of a brutal dictator.

The war was not with the concept of National Socialism. The war was with Germany and it's allies, not all of whom subscribed to the ideology.

Haven't you ever heard of the bromide that the "purpose of an army is to kill the enemy & break their things?"

I have. I just don't see these guys having stuff that needs an army to break.

Obviously if AQ doesn't have an industrial complex you can't bomb it into oblivion, but you can still kill the people.
Surely you don't need my feeble input to figure that amazingly difficult concept.  

We seem to have a little problem determining just who those people are.

Certainly there must be someone up in military intel....somewhere....state dept. (Ack!)  that can recognize the end of a war when he(she) sees it.  

Commendable faith, but without any basis in reality.

How did we know WW2 was over?  Right, that little shindig aboard that battleship in Tokyo Bay.  

The war was over when the other guy was unable to continue and said so in writing through an official representative. Armed jihad has no official representatives. It's a thing various people do. There is no way for it to surrender.

I believe there will be some tell, IMHO.  I don't know what it is.

If you don't know what it is, what makes you so sure it exists?
 

The cmdr in chief was engaging in something called rhetoric.  I was not engaging in something called rhetoric .... though I might as well have been for all the good it does me here.
P.S.; the Commander-in-Chief is a boob.

Clearly, you don't hold the current CiC in very high regard. However, he isn't the one who created the medal.

I wonder if Patton knew when "the fighting would stop"?  I mean....someone gave him a date certain?  

Actually, he did. Wars don't end on a specific date. Wars end when one of the sides surrenders.

What would the surrender look like in this case? Oh, wait. You don't know.

Seriously, the people who are awaiting Rapture are on more solid ground than you. They at least know what they are waiting for.

[roo_ster]

I don't believe it is Orthodox Islam that is the threat, but the primitive tribal types who use Orthodox Islam as the excuse and vehicle to attack the West.  I have a few coworkers from that region.  To hear them talk, religion is only part of the problem.  The main issue is an ancient culture that requires revenge for any slight.

Every time we bomb a wedding party to kill one "high value target", we give a whole bunch of people reason to hate us.  Along comes an imam with an answer in the form of "join our sect and you get to kill infidels" and you now have 20 new "terrorists".

It's human nature coupled with a culture that believes in revenge for any slight.  This goes beyond Islam.  As long as we're in their homeland, killing their people, we'll never run out of primitive tribal types who want to kill us.  Orthodox Islam merely gives them the vehicle.

Chris

1. Muslim co-workers or exchange students are not particularly representative of "back home."  We in the West have repeatedly and foolishly thought such folk were representative of their kind.  And we have repeatedly been disappointed when we push a merely authoritarian regime over with their help...to end up with an even nastier regime that takes its Islam straight-up orthodox clit-cutting and throat-slashing.

2. Your buddies may be everything you say and what we would want in a sane & rational contemporary Islam.  Too bad they are a small and shrinking minority in the middle east.  When such folk take over, you got Ataturk's Turkey.  Not Switzerland, but not a muslim hell hole.  Problem is, they have been outbred by the orthodox muslims from the back country.  Again, Turkey is the model here.  When authoritarian but mildly modern or pro-west regimes falter and the folks in the back country have a say, they have almost always sided with orthodox Islam.

3. Orthodoxy is easier to defend, as it is supported by the source documents.  The heterodox and heretical variants of Islam may be able to co-exist with the West without rancor, but they lose the intra-muslim argument and get fewer adherents.  We see the same here in the USA with protestant Christianity.  The older denominations that have (theologically) liberalized have been dying for decades and are circling the drain.  The confessional and/or more orthodox denominations see growth.  The big difference is that the closer folk hew to orthodox Christianity, the more easily they coexist with decent classically liberal Western civilization.

4. The real & hypothetical "wedding party" collateral damage casualties were never ours to claim as allies or even neutrals.  If they are that closely tied by blood to a HVT we want to turn into dog meat, they are already our enemies.  Killing them may be "collateral" and may be inadvertent, but it will have roughly zero effect to increase opposition and even less effect on letting them have greater reach to hit us.

I'm not sure if you are actually advocating anything specific, but it is my fervent hope that he answer to your second question and the implied campaign of terror behind it remains "No!"

I would sooner see Islamic civilization snuffed out and forever shattered than see the same happen to Western Civilization.  And it would not be a campaign of terror, but of mass killing, destruction, displacement, and colonization of their lands with Western peoples.  The sort of thing that happened pretty regularly in history.  The sort of thing that Western Civ largely put an end to...but may be necessary for its survival.  [I would note that it would be the same sort of thing Islam did to large stretches of Christendom, Persia, and N India during the muslim expansion starting in the 600s.]

I would hope we could find the stones to do it, were it to come to that.  I care more for Western Civ and more for the folk who live in Western Civ than I do for Islamic Civ and its constituents.  Western Civ is just plain better and better for humans.  I would gladly compare human accomplishments in any realm of endeavor as well as metrics of material well-being and liberty to make back that up.

So - if we make the wimenz wear burkas then we will have defeated the Jihadists 

Are you being obtuse or just deliberately misconstruing what I wrote in the usual, "If you don't support  'Pot for 10 year old kids fornicating on Main Street' you are a puritanical statist" fashion?


To get back to the OP, I think Snowden's actions have helped to expose the ugly police state architecture in our gov't.  I support him as a whistle blower not because I have some love of muslim terrorists and his revelations may have harmed prosecution of the War on Somethingorother, but because I value liberty and Western Civ.  I would be perfectly fine with a robust classically liberal regime that could and did depopulate the middle east if it became a threat to our interests and/or liberty.