Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
500 less Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 500 less

    Considering we have been running our own terror campaign on a certain militant fundamentalist group over there, and have removed 500 of their members, I do feel safer these days.

    We are taking the fight to those that started it, and we are hitting them in a manner that has them looking over their shoulders never knowing if or when a drone is going to blow them up. They're getting nervous.

    Since 2009 over 500 militants of various ranks, from recruits to leadership, have successfully been eliminated from the field of battle. They are no longer operating with impunity within their home country.

    We are using terrorist style tactics against terrorists.

    It ain't sexy, it ain't flashy, it ain't Shock-n-Awe. It just makes them nervous and makes it especially challenging to recruit.

    So far the combination of statesmanship, intelligence and military activities have resulted in a continued erosion of their power and influence.

    So yes, I feel safer. Because we are going about the matter in a smart and effective manner, regardless the lack of pageantry and headlines.

    LA Times
    NY Times
    Wall Street Journal

  • #2
    Re: 500 less

    That is the only way to fight them. Conventional tactics won't work unless you blow up the whole country, then you'll have killed innocents.
    www.ClinkscalesSeptic.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 500 less

      It's a quiet operation, devoid of news conferences proclaiming success is just another six months away. It doesn't lend itself to photo ops.

      But the enemy is getting a taste of their own medicine. Perhaps the staunch, hardliners that have made a commitment to their cause will die with their boots on, but there is a growing disincentive for the youth to join their ranks. And villages are less likely to give aid and comfort to these folks because they suffer collateral damage in these 'out of the blue' attacks.

      Now if we just had Valerie Plame still running the Brewster-Jennings front group in Iran we may have better intelligence about their nuclear programs. But national and international security was sacrificed for political gain.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 500 less

        That is awesome news!!! I'm sorry I learned about it on a plumbing forum. I don't know if we are safer I'm just glad 500 of my enemy is dead.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 500 less

          Originally posted by Trent2 View Post
          That is the only way to fight them. Conventional tactics won't work unless you blow up the whole country, then you'll have killed innocents.
          I dought innocents are not getting killed now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 500 less

            500 seems to be a drop in the bucket considering how many are in various countries. I know it sounds extreme and cruel, but to eradicate the threat of indefinite terrorist acts and the loss of "innocent" American lives, perhaps a few massisve bombing are the way to go?

            I'd like to see iran, pakistan, afghanistan, china, india, spain and france taken out along with russia. What the hell are we waiting for? I forgot mexico!
            Last edited by Frankiarmz; 05-07-2010, 07:07 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 500 less

              While you may be unimpressed with this number, it is a big number none the less.

              Stop and think about it for a minute. How many terrorist camps and training centers are Afghanistan? We are terrorizing the terrorist. And we are taking them out.

              We saw how effective Shock-n-Awe was in taking out Al Qaeda. Ooops. They weren't there before Shock-N-Awe. But they sure were there after.

              So long as we continue to chip away at the existing organization, we are reducing there effectiveness daily. We are fighting fire with fire.

              Do you think the terrorists are having an easy time recruiting these days?

              As for the other nations you mentioned, I don't follow your rationale for inflicting violence on them. I realize we are a war nation, but Spain? France?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 500 less

                Franki,

                So-called "strategic bombing" only works in certain scenarios, and even then it is largely subject to a point of view. For example, the London Blitz while devestating to the cities structure was a total failure in it's ability to convince the British of anything other then it's need to stand together again the Nazis. Likewise the so-called "shock and awe" that opened up the invasion of Iraq did much to rally resistance and hate against the U.S., as well as provide a very convincing centerpoint to a terrorist recruitment campaign.

                Personally I think the "Shock and Awe" campaign became more a matter of "Shocking" the world.... only the Bush administration seemed to be in "Awe" of it.

                Historically, massive bombing campaigns do little. The long-range strategy of conventional warfare is to deny the means of making war, by targeting the structures of war material... manufacturing of munitions, armaments, petroleum, and all other facilities necessary to the war efforts of the enemy. It is NOT the killing of civilians or civil structures, unless they are part of the war making machine.

                With counter terrorist and insurgency operations, the targets are less defined, harder to locate and identify, and are by and large purposely hidden in the midst of innocence. The Taliban is adept at hiding in the cities and villages as well as deep within the mountainas regions of Afganistan. Difficult to find and often hidden with the help of both supportive villagers and those held hostage to their power. In highly populated areas, the insurgents hide in obvious areas, as demostrated by Hamas, who is well known for placing thier rocket launchers in the midst of civilian schools, shops, and civilian government centers.

                In the last Bush administration, Condy Rice and Don Rumsfelt were the two primary directors of military activity. Both demonstrated a micro-management style that did little in in utilization of our best military minds. It was more of a civilian-charged operation, rather than one where we relied on our military's expertice. Rumsfelt was a "cold-war" officianado of the nuclear age. Rice's specific area of expertise was in global nuclear strategies. IMO, neither had a background or clear understanding of middle-eastern culture or the military strategies that were necessary to a successful and efficient military operation.

                I certainly can't point to anything in Obama's past that makes him any kind of military leader. However, it seems to be obvious that wearing a uniform in one's past doesn't necessarily mean you cannot lead. On the contrary, it appears that his non-military background, brings him to call upon those who are expert in such matters; and, at the same time bear-in-mind the civilian justices that are necessary in modern warfare.

                The results of that is what we are seeing... hence the heading that Spiff has given to this thread. We are seeing a successful campaign against an illusive enemy. At the same time our diplomatic activity has seen an increase in joint operations with our Pakistan allies.

                CWS

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 500 less

                  You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 500 less

                    I was just kidding, except for france!

                    Since we were talking about massive bombing, exactly how much devistation could we cause if we so choose? Could we level some of the countries I mentioned? Could we destroy all our enemies and start over if full command of the world?

                    There would have to be massive change at home as well. No more prolonged trails and incarcerations, speedy justice and executions. No more imprisonment for killers, pedophiles, violent rapists, drug dealers. A new world, safer world. All joking aside we are living in disgraceful situations with rapists, pedophiles and murderers causing all sorts of damage and still allowed to breathe and eat. Our society really needs some major overhauls.

                    When a US citizen can be killed by illegals on US soil and a US politician speaks out against a law that would help enforce immigration laws that have been ignored, we have problems! Forget about killing terrorists one or two at a time using their methods. We have powerful weapons, use them and spare American lives. How many Americans need to die or be crippled making America safe?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 500 less

                      Franki - I can't speak to our tactical supply of conventional munitions, but as for nuclear warheads it was recently reported that the US has somewhere just north of 5,100 nuclear warheads. This number is likely more than sufficient to make the planet inhabitable to human life.

                      Bombing in general is a blunt tool.

                      As for our legal system, the same constitutional rights and laws that prevent the lowest dregs of society from meeting the kind of justice you call for, prevent you from being railroaded into jail on trumped up charges and executed without a fair trial.

                      Any similarity between the legal system and the justice system is purely coincidental.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 500 less

                        Originally posted by CWSmith View Post
                        Franki,

                        So-called "strategic bombing" only works in certain scenarios, and even then it is largely subject to a point of view. For example, the London Blitz while devestating to the cities structure was a total failure in it's ability to convince the British of anything other then it's need to stand together again the Nazis. Likewise the so-called "shock and awe" that opened up the invasion of Iraq did much to rally resistance and hate against the U.S., as well as provide a very convincing centerpoint to a terrorist recruitment campaign.

                        Personally I think the "Shock and Awe" campaign became more a matter of "Shocking" the world.... only the Bush administration seemed to be in "Awe" of it.

                        Historically, massive bombing campaigns do little. The long-range strategy of conventional warfare is to deny the means of making war, by targeting the structures of war material... manufacturing of munitions, armaments, petroleum, and all other facilities necessary to the war efforts of the enemy. It is NOT the killing of civilians or civil structures, unless they are part of the war making machine.

                        With counter terrorist and insurgency operations, the targets are less defined, harder to locate and identify, and are by and large purposely hidden in the midst of innocence. The Taliban is adept at hiding in the cities and villages as well as deep within the mountainas regions of Afganistan. Difficult to find and often hidden with the help of both supportive villagers and those held hostage to their power. In highly populated areas, the insurgents hide in obvious areas, as demostrated by Hamas, who is well known for placing thier rocket launchers in the midst of civilian schools, shops, and civilian government centers.

                        In the last Bush administration, Condy Rice and Don Rumsfelt were the two primary directors of military activity. Both demonstrated a micro-management style that did little in in utilization of our best military minds. It was more of a civilian-charged operation, rather than one where we relied on our military's expertice. Rumsfelt was a "cold-war" officianado of the nuclear age. Rice's specific area of expertise was in global nuclear strategies. IMO, neither had a background or clear understanding of middle-eastern culture or the military strategies that were necessary to a successful and efficient military operation.

                        I certainly can't point to anything in Obama's past that makes him any kind of military leader. However, it seems to be obvious that wearing a uniform in one's past doesn't necessarily mean you cannot lead. On the contrary, it appears that his non-military background, brings him to call upon those who are expert in such matters; and, at the same time bear-in-mind the civilian justices that are necessary in modern warfare.

                        The results of that is what we are seeing... hence the heading that Spiff has given to this thread. We are seeing a successful campaign against an illusive enemy. At the same time our diplomatic activity has seen an increase in joint operations with our Pakistan allies.

                        CWS
                        I would like to bring this to the attention of the people who will listen. Russia went into Afganistan and fought long and hard for 10 years what did they gain Nothing the only thing they gained was them running home with their tail between their legs. In Russia they don't have the media showing the public what is really happening they don't have freedom of speech like we have here. They wiped towns off the face of the earth nobody knew about it. No Media. This war will bring the West to its knees and we will also have to face the music and head home with our tails between our legs. It is very hard to fight a war when you can't see your enemy. At least in the World Wars you knew who was good and who was bad. They fight only when it is to their advantage and when we stop worrying about when they will hit us again because we have become complacent in our every day lives ( 9-11 ).
                        Last time I try to fix it myself. Next time I will hire a PROFESSIONAL.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 500 less

                          I still contend that had we rained down on Afghanistan with Tomahawks and every other conventional munition on 9/12, there would be no War-On-Terror, whatever that is suppose to mean.

                          But instead we gave them an eight week head start in some of the most treacherous, concealing landscape in world. We let the bad guys get away while we dithered.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 500 less

                            Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                            I still contend that had we rained down on Afghanistan with Tomahawks and every other conventional munition on 9/12, there would be no War-On-Terror, whatever that is suppose to mean.

                            But instead we gave them an eight week head start in some of the most treacherous, concealing landscape in world. We let the bad guys get away while we dithered.
                            Yeah, well we're not playing with terrorists anymore! If they attack us here we will read them their rights and get them lawyers and....

                            Who are we kidding? We have bombs that could level mountains, how many more dead Americans will it take before we either fight a war or retreat?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 500 less

                              Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                              Yeah, well we're not playing with terrorists anymore! If they attack us here we will read them their rights and get them lawyers and....
                              The Times Square guy was an American. You want a different set of laws based on the crime?

                              Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                              Who are we kidding? We have bombs that could level mountains, how many more dead Americans will it take before we either fight a war or retreat?
                              Unfortunately leveling a mountain would also affect the rest of the world. Between the radioactive fallout and dust cloud released into the atmosphere I think we would just generate more terrorists.

                              Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a Hollywood ending to this War-On-Terror. But detonating a thermo nuclear weapon in that region would be very, very dangerous. Pakistan is so close to being run by radical fundamentalist Muslims that such an act could very well put them in control of their government and then you would see a nuclear exchange that would reshape the geopolitical landscape, not to mention the environment, for generations to come.

                              So, taking out a mountain where a handful of bad guys are hiding would simply be foolish.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X