The Enemy

The pessimistic view some have of this country is amazing.

Re: http://www.nepadigital.com/bb/post35634.html#p35634

Just so my resounding silence in the face of that kindly supplied point for point rebuttal isn't interpreted as abandoning the debate in defeat or ignoring you're effort...
I'm going to let the two posts stand without further direct rebuttal. I think they lay out our two sides of the debate (and there are certainly more) quite well. To answer one of your ending posits for clarification (not rebuttal):

13-16 were just examples of events where we did something that I thought could be fairly characterized as "bad". I do not concede that all of 14-16 were
"improper meddling", only that they could be fairly characterized as such by another.

Wait, one direct rebuttal:

1.1) I'm not claiming GW and the gang didn't use guerrilla tactics, practically all outmatched adversaries do. I was only speaking to the point of baiting the British to commit some offensive act for the purpose of gaining some propaganda point. Was it never done? I don't know, but I'm fairly confident it wasn't anything approaching common place and it certainly wasn't a hallmark tactic of the revolution as it so obviously is for the jihadis. Would they have used the tactic if the British of the time were as sqeamish as the US and the West has become and if they lived in the time of the internet and 24/7 media? I still don't think it would have been common. Both sides in the revolution generally fought by a much more civilized "code" than the jihadis do today and frankly both sides were lead by a far more intellectually serious and philosophically rational sort than the jihadi's.

And that's just for one rebuttal point. As you can see, if we were to get into this in an ongoing way the posts would get ridiculously long, and given the wide chasm that appears to separate our opinions on these matters in the end (if there ever was one) it probably would have been little more than a way to fill up Richard's disc space quota on the server.

I'm trying to ween myself off these off-topic debate threads. I just couldn't resist your statement in that post a few back. It's almost like you were baiting me. I leave it to others to judge which, if any of us, are engaging in guerrilla tactics.

Stokingfull, lets back up a minute. Care to explain the reason behind the attacks on the Hindu's, other Muslims or anyone that doesn't adhere to their religious practices? Shall I list the terroist attacks again? Your comparison to the American revolution quite frankly sickens me, how many British children were killed by U.S. Revolutionaries on purpose? How many revolutionaries walked into a British store and blew themselves up with intent of taking as many British with them as possible whether they were men women or children. How many other countries were U.S. Revolutionaries taking an active part in toppling?

Your comparison doesn't even begin to address the fundamental issue which is these people want us and anyone else that doesn't fit their mold dead, period.

pvolcko wrote:Re: http://www.nepadigital.com/bb/post35634.html#p35634

Wait, one direct rebuttal:

1.1) I'm not claiming GW and the gang didn't use guerrilla tactics, practically all outmatched adversaries do. I was only speaking to the point of baiting the British to commit some offensive act for the purpose of gaining some propaganda point. Was it never done? I don't know, but I'm fairly confident it wasn't anything approaching common place and it certainly wasn't a hallmark tactic of the revolution as it so obviously is for the jihadis. Would they have used the tactic if the British of the time were as sqeamish as the US and the West has become and if they lived in the time of the internet and 24/7 media? I still don't think it would have been common. Both sides in the revolution generally fought by a much more civilized "code" than the jihadis do today and frankly both sides were lead by a far more intellectually serious and philosophically rational sort than the jihadi's.

And that's just for one rebuttal point. As you can see, if we were to get into this in an ongoing way the posts would get ridiculously long, and given the wide chasm that appears to separate our opinions on these matters in the end (if there ever was one) it probably would have been little more than a way to fill up Richard's disc space quota on the server.

I'm trying to ween myself off these off-topic debate threads. I just couldn't resist your statement in that post a few back. It's almost like you were baiting me. I leave it to others to judge which, if any of us, are engaging in guerrilla tactics.

Paul, although we don't agree, at least your responses are both thoughtful and civil, which sets them apart from most which come from the right here.

On your rebuttal, all I can say is, if the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence weren't provocative acts in their time (before there was dynamite, jet aircraft or skyscrapers to fly them into), I don't know what would have been. In fact, if David McCullough's portrayal of the Boston Massacre in the current -- and excellent -- John Adams series on HBO is accurate, the British soldiers were "baited" or even affirmatively deceived into firing their muskets by the provocative acts of the rebellious crowd which confronted them. That's how defense counsel John Adams got them (i.e., the British soldiers) acquitted.

But, as the old saying goes, history is written by the victors. Were it not so, our genocidal treatment of the American Indian might warrant a congressional rebuke similar to that directed at Turkey over the Armenians.

IMO, there is no higher patriotism than the call to adhere to the principles upon which our nation was founded, even when -- perhaps especially when -- that call conflicts with what's convenient or popular at the moment. No President, no commander, stands above the Constitution and laws of our nation. My respect is directed to the latter; those who occupy the former positions are human beings, subject to all the flaws and foibles of all of us. They must be constantly measured against the yardstick of those principles.

Richard S. wrote:Stokingfull, lets back up a minute. Care to explain the reason behind the attacks on the Hindu's, other Muslims or anyone that doesn't adhere to their religious practices? Shall I list the terroist attacks again? Your comparison to the American revolution quite frankly sickens me, how many British children were killed by U.S. Revolutionaries on purpose? How many revolutionaries walked into a British store and blew themselves up with intent of taking as many British with them as possible whether they were men women or children. How many other countries were U.S. Revolutionaries taking an active part in toppling?

Your comparison doesn't even begin to address the fundamental issue which is these people want us and anyone else that doesn't fit their mold dead, period.

Richard, if you think no children have been killed in any of our nation's escapades, you're living in a dream world. Good God, our own military did it at My Lai. Oh, and let's not forget the rape and massacre at Haditha in November 2005. And of course Abu Ghraib. That's what sickens me. And those that we know about are but a few because, as so many have argued here, it's "unpatriotic" to reveal the war crimes that we've committed.

Do desperate people attack civilians when they're outmatched? Sadly, yes.

But that fact alone ought to be a signal that conventional brute force is exactly the wrong way to address the problem. Why? Because the nature of the enemy is antithetical to the use of conventional force, therefore the use of such force is absolutely futile, the futility leads to the use of excessive force, and the use of excessive force breeds even more insurrection.

We have to find another way. If we don't, or can't, or won't, we're not nearly as smart as we think we are.

[quote="stockingfull We have to find another way. If we don't, or can't, or won't, we're not nearly as smart as we think we are.[/quote]
You simply do not understand the enemy we face which is Islam. It forbids them from negoitiating or compromising with their enemy. You'll be singing "Cumbya" right up until the time they kill you.

coalkirk wrote:You simply do not understand the enemy we face which is Islam. It forbids them from negoitiating or compromising with their enemy. You'll be singing "Cumbya" right up until the time they kill you.

I didn't say anything about Kumbaya. I said what we've been doing to combat radical Islam isn't working -- to the contrary, it's making the problem worse -- and we have to figure out a better way.

stockingfull wrote:Paul, although we don't agree, at least your responses are both thoughtful and civil, which sets them apart from most which come from the right here.

What's ironic is they don't care if you right or left, however I would think liberals would probably on the top of the list.

On your rebuttal, all I can say is, if the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence weren't provocative acts in their time (before there was dynamite, jet aircraft or skyscrapers to fly them into), I don't know what would have been.

I specifically left out those types of scenarios on purpose, anything I mentioned could easily have been accomplished. Gunpowder keg?

But, as the old saying goes, history is written by the victors. Were it not so, our genocidal treatment of the American Indian might warrant a congressional rebuke similar to that directed at Turkey over the Armenians.

Ceratainly a good point but again no comparison, first of all that happened between the times when the white man first got here and up too 150 years ago. I'll stress the fact it was 150 years ago, if we fast forward to present the Indian population in the U.S. has any rights that the white man has as does anyone else whether they are Muslim, Jew or or purple with pink poke-a-dots. They are not persecuted and of course there is no intention to wipe them off the map at the present time that I'm aware of.

Secondly the vast majority of The U.S. population would agree that's a blemish on American history, you can't turn back the hands of time though you can only move forward and try to correct mistakes of the past. If this was for example the Muslims that routed the Jews out of their homeland it would be celebrated event, or if you want a real event, a celebration of the killing of 1000's of people during the World Trade Center attacks.

stockingfull wrote:
Richard, if you think no children have been killed in any of our nation's escapades, you're living in a dream world.

I never said that. But... the U.S. military/government/population doesn't target civilians or children on purpose simply because they don't agree with their views. What's even more important is they will denounce such acts and punish anyone that does. That my friend is the difference between us and them.

I'll ask again, you keep skirting the question. Where do the Hindu's or other Muslims also slaughtered by these fanatics over the last 40 years fit into your suggestion that if we just left them alone that that these acts won't occur? They are more than willing to kill their own people that are Muslims, where do you think that leaves us huh?

Richard S. wrote:

stockingfull wrote:
Richard, if you think no children have been killed in any of our nation's escapades, you're living in a dream world.

I never said that. But... the U.S. military/government/population doesn't target civilians or children on purpose simply because they don't agree with their views. What's even more important is they will denounce such acts and punish anyone that does. That my friend is the difference between us and them.

I'll ask again, you keep skirting the question. Where do the Hindu's or other Muslims also slaughtered by these fanatics over the last 40 years fit into your suggestion that if we just left them alone that that these acts won't occur? They are more than willing to kill their own people that are Muslims, where do you think that leaves us huh?

I'm not a student of IslamoHindu history; if you are, perhaps you could cite us to some of the scholarship analyzing motives in these attacks. As to the Shiite mosque bombings in Iraq, it's pretty well known that some of them were done by Shiias themselves just to incite their own population. Hmmm, force as provocation? Provocation as galvanizing/recruiting force?

In that absence of more facts, however, my response is the elemental principle that radicals of every stripe respond in greater numbers the more desperate the circumstances are perceived to be. Had the Versailles Treaty not been so impossibly oppressive, Hitler never could have come to power in Germany. Hillary voters after Iowa, you get the idea...

Bottom line remains unchanged. Our approach is not working. We have to find a better way.

stockingfull wrote:Bottom line remains unchanged. Our approach is not working. We have to find a better way.

Correction, the Muslim world has to find a better way. If they can't find it we'll show them where it is. The Muslim world can solve this problem but as history as shown us especially over the last 40 years they have no inclination to do it. The can't even keep peace between themselves and you expect them to keep peace with us or the Jews or anyone else... not going to happen.

perhaps you could cite us to some of the scholarship analyzing motives in these attacks.

Scholarship? sure, they aren't Muslim therefore they must die. They have been persecuting Hindus in India for centuries.

stockingfull wrote:On your rebuttal, all I can say is, if the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence weren't provocative acts in their time (before there was dynamite, jet aircraft or skyscrapers to fly them into), I don't know what would have been. In fact, if David McCullough's portrayal of the Boston Massacre in the current -- and excellent -- John Adams series on HBO is accurate, the British soldiers were "baited" or even affirmatively deceived into firing their muskets by the provocative acts of the rebellious crowd which confronted them. That's how defense counsel John Adams got them acquitted.

Oh man, you are baiting me now, aren't you?

Do you mean to suggest that you believe the only thing that prevented the Boston Tea Party from being the Boston "Pair of Passenger Jumbo Jets into the center of Boston" Party or the Boston "Dynamite Main Street" Party is that the technology wasn't available at the time? Or to put a more charitable spin on it, that if the BTP were to be carried out today that it would have taken the form of the 1993 attack on the towers or the 9/11/01 tower attacks? If you are, then my only response can be (and I apologize in advance for the personal attack, but I can't think of a nice way to say it): you are delusional.

There were plenty of ways they could have make just as provacative an act as the 9/11 tower attack were. They didn't have dynamite, but they had kegs of blackpowder. No skyscrapers, but plenty of very important targets: market places, ports, merchant ships, military ships, schools, churches, bridges, mills, etc. They could have set the entire main street on fire, women and children, old and infirm be damned. They didn't though. They dumped a bunch of tea into the harbor. They didn't kill or even hurt a single person in this act. According to wikipedia, they even replaced a padlock that was accidentally broken during the thing!

And the Boston Massacre was basically the British opening fire on a rioting crowd. All but four of the soldiers were found not guilty, those convicted were convicted because they fired directly into the crowd instead of into the air or over the heads of the crowd to disperse them. The riot/crowd was instigated by an anti-british wigmaker, but the rioters weren't innocent, being anti-british enough themselves to participate in the riot. The propaganda that was generated based on that massacre happened before all the facts were known and regardless was generated independently from those responsible for instigating the event. So the event was not an attempt to bait the british into committing an act for a propaganda piece. In contradistinction, when Jihadis bait our troops (or our nation) they generally bait us into killing innocents by presenting a very dangerous situation where the soldiers are entirely justified in the actions they take, while the jihadis hide out of range and film the whole event, edit out any contextualizing bits, and then post it to the net and mail it to TV news outlets. And even if we were to accept that the Boston Massacre was a deliberate attempt to bait the british into firing on the crowd for propaganda purposes, at least the anti-brits baited the british upon themselves. And finally, John Adams was anti-british and the jury was probably at least partly so! Do you think for a moment that Al Queda's jihadi lawyer is about to represent a US soldier in court or military tribunal at all, much less for an act against a muslim or in relation to an event AQ is propagandizing or deliberately arranged to have happen?

You are so barking up the wrong tree on this recent line of argument you've started.

But, as the old saying goes, history is written by the victors. Were it not so, our genocidal treatment of the American Indian might warrant a congressional rebuke similar to that directed at Turkey over the Armenians.

I'm not taking the bait this time.

IMO, there is no higher patriotism than the call to adhere to the principles upon which our nation was founded, even when -- perhaps especially when -- that call conflicts with what's convenient or popular at the moment. No President, no commander, stands above the Constitution and laws of our nation. My respect is directed to the latter; those who occupy the former positions are human beings, subject to all the flaws and foibles of all of us. They must be constantly measured against the yardstick of those principles.

That's a beautiful sentiment. How you choose to apply it to the values, ethics, and motivations of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks or to AQ or any number of other Islamic-extremist terrorists around the world, or actually venture to draw equivalence between the 9/11 attacker's tactics and those of Paul Reveere, John Adams, GW, and the rest of our country's founding rebels (or even the British for that matter) is beyond comprehension.

And damn it, stop baiting me!

I haven't had much time to follow this thread over the weekend so excuse me if I have missed some main points but in a quick reading of the posts it seems that we have bogged down in "who" & "why" the enemy is. I am in total agreement with Richard;'s post when he lisetd the horrible litany of muslim fundamentalist crimes against almost all society. The question isn't so much "who" the enemy is but "how" to most effectively fight them. Keeping our overstretched & tired army bogged down & easy targets on the streets of Bagdad seems a totaly ineffective & incredibly costly tactic against our Muslim enemy. We have tried this way for the last 5 years & violence is rising again. Why not try a different tactic?

stockingfull wrote:

coalkirk wrote:You simply do not understand the enemy we face which is Islam. It forbids them from negoitiating or compromising with their enemy. You'll be singing "Cumbya" right up until the time they kill you.

I didn't say anything about Kumbaya. I said what we've been doing to combat radical Islam isn't working -- to the contrary, it's making the problem worse -- and we have to figure out a better way.

Well I'm open to taking a different strategy. But abruptly pulling out of Iraq and having it spiral in complete chaos and under the control of the nut jobs in Iran can't be phase one. So what is this new strategy? Please enlighten us. Also, please CC the White House, Pentagon and State Department while your at it. I'm sure they would like to hear it.

Devil5052 wrote:I haven't had much time to follow this thread over the weekend so excuse me if I have missed some main points but in a quick reading of the posts it seems that we have bogged down in "who" & "why" the enemy is. I am in total agreement with Richard;'s post when he lisetd the horrible litany of muslim fundamentalist crimes against almost all society. The question isn't so much "who" the enemy is but "how" to most effectively fight them. Keeping our overstretched & tired army bogged down & easy targets on the streets of Bagdad seems a totaly ineffective & incredibly costly tactic against our Muslim enemy. We have tried this way for the last 5 years & violence is rising again. Why not try a different tactic?

Good morning Devil,
I'm not so sure we have resolved the "who the enemy is". Politicians are still chanting the "islam is a peaceful religion" mantra. My firm belief is that this is a clash of civilizations. Islam versus everyone else. I don't know how long it will take for this to be generally accepted, maybe not in my life time, but surely in my childrens or grandchildrens life, it will be acknowledged. Luckily for western civilization, I think Stockingfull has a plan. I hope he does anyway. I do know that repeatedly calling Bush names doesn't help the problem. Maybe we could work on that this week and I'd bet the level of rancor will come down.