Article

2005-11-22 Terror Networks & Islam

War on terrorism could go on for 20 years

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-11-22 12:47|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Its a war that must be fought. By fighting it over the next 20 years, i think it will ensure our safety for the next 80 years. The war on terror would take far less time had it been fought earlier and the terror threat not been appeased for so long.

Posted by bgrebel9 2005-11-22 12:52|| 2005-11-22 12:52|| Front Page Top

#2 I agree, bgrebel. And, as a member of the younger generation (early 30's), count me in for a "long, hard slog." This is 1 war we can't (literally) afford to lose; not that that doesn't keep the LLL from trying from within. It does give me hope that the vote on pulling out of Iraq was whacked so hard the other day...maybe we have learned our lessons from Vietnam. Pulling out WILL have consequences, ones we don't want to face.

Posted by BA 2005-11-22 13:22|| 2005-11-22 13:22|| Front Page Top

#3 At our current expenditure rate of a bazillion dollars a day, we most definitely DO NOT have 20 years to solve this problem. Other significant issues, like protecting human rights plus the fighting of things like disease, famine, illiteracy and the abuse of women all demand that terrorism be quashed post haste.

This is why I have floated such notions as taking the Islamic shrines hostage and agree with Mrs. Davis's suggestion that all proliferators, rogue nations and terrorist sponsors be put on notice that a single nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil will result in all of them being reduced to smoking glass.

I heard a statistic that some 500 security personnel are hired for ever terrorist. This represents a ridiculous diversion of assets that are desperately needed elsewhere. These Islamist psychotics have no right to sideline our globe's progress in such fashion.

It is high time that those of us who are actively opposing terrorism recognize its true cost and act upon that knowledge in a more appropriate manner. THOUSANDS of people are dying each day, the equivalent of 9-11 every 24 hours because we are obliged to go after these religious fanatics.

Enough of this crap. We must begin decapping the governments of terror sponsors and rooting out the dens where terrorists have situated themselves. The sovereignty of nations harboring these murderous thugs means zip, nada, zilch and those who say otherwise are engaging in spineless moral relativism (see Chris Matthews' article posted yesterday) that will only result in getting all of us killed.

Repeat, we DO NOT have 20 years of this financial hemorrhaging to spare. Much more efficacious methods and means must be employed if we wish to see this world make an iota of progress in the face of such genocidal insanity.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-22 14:55|| 2005-11-22 14:55|| Front Page Top

#4 THE war on terror is likely to continue for decades, according to a top United States counter-terrorism official.

News flash Henry, the war has been going on since Muhammad.

Posted by gromgoru 2005-11-22 15:03|| 2005-11-22 15:03|| Front Page Top

#5 We have to get the money away from the radical Islamists. The rise of all these nutcases is directly related to oil revenues. That means:
1. Changing the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia one way or another.
2. Developing alternative oil and fuel sources to the ME.
3. Take over ME oil fields by a group effort and keep the money in a trust fund.
4. Any or all the above.

We have to get the money away from the MMs and other nutcases. Otherwise, it will be our defensive war, burning up treasure like Jack the Bear.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-11-22 15:16|| 2005-11-22 15:16|| Front Page Top

#6 I say we start with AP's #2 first. Then the pain to our economy will be small when we start to do the rest. I see this as a war that will still be going when I die. It's been going on a few centuries already.

Posted by Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu 2005-11-22 15:39|| 2005-11-22 15:39|| Front Page Top

#7 I've said gefore, we can't win the WoT. What we must ensure is that we don't lose it, because that takes us down the France road of a death from a thousand cuts.

The cost is manageable and over time will get less as better identity and information systems are put in place.

The terror sponsoring states of Syria and Iran must go and the countries themselves must be dismembered into ethnic states that do not need external enemies to hold them together. Syria first and hopefully soon.

Posted by phil_b 2005-11-22 16:07|| 2005-11-22 16:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Like hell it will. Under a US President - lacking the faith-based sandbag - Russia, China, India, Christian Africa, South America, South East Asia, etc will unite and crush the Muslim enemy. The present myopia cannot last forever. Cheney is even hinting at hardening the war effort. Rummy has long been held back by Powell-Rice Rainbow Coalitionism.

Think of the planet as your home, and Muslims like unwanted pests. I love the smell of charcoaled Iranians in the morning.

Posted by FarkiFazo 2005-11-22 16:26|| 2005-11-22 16:26|| Front Page Top

#9 Alaska Paul:
Let me address one initiative. Last I heard there was about 80% Kurdish support for the US occupation of Iraq (the occupation is only token in Kurdish areas). Most of the deep oil pools are in proto Kurdistan (only 15% of Iraq territory has been explored for petroleum deposits). If US made an agreement with Kurds to carpet bomb uppity Sunni and Shiite areas while assisting ethnic cleansing of pro-Iran or Saudi elements, Kurds would gladly assist in extending Kurdistan to the Gulf. US allies would then hold 100% of Iraq oil deposits and Kurds would no longer be a landlocked people. Where do the Sunnis and Shiites fit in this scheme? No where!!! That's the point. Those pigs write off Americans, ergo: quid pro quo.

I recall Rantburg denial when the Telegraph (and you should know that the Tely is a rightwing pro-US daily), reported 65% Iraqi support for attacks on US forces (much higher if Kurd opinion is excluded). Would anyone who supports continued nation-building in Iraq, in context of both Iraq opinion and the couple of hundred billion in US counter terror equity, please tell me your plan? If you are a Republican, then you should ask yourself if stay-the-course retains support.

Posted by FarkiFazo 2005-11-22 16:40|| 2005-11-22 16:40|| Front Page Top

#10 FarkiFazo, there is no chance of a Greater Kurdistan extending south to the Gulf. A more feasible plan is to extend it west into Syria with a corridor to the Med south of the Turkish border. This also makes far more geopolitical sense and gives an export route not threatened by Iran.

We shall see what happens when the Syrian regime collapses.

Posted by phil_b 2005-11-22 16:54|| 2005-11-22 16:54|| Front Page Top

#11 Hey Farki - your friends Nancy and Murtha helped answer that question with a resounding 403-3.

All of the tizzy tantrums - all of bluster, all of the hype, and then they just tucked their tails and dined on crow pie. Spent the last few days telling us how good it tasted too. ummmmm... yum,yum.

403 - 3. Suck it up. I know it's tough for someone of your linear thinking ability to fathom - but it's clear that the majority of their constituents, ie: Americans, support the war.

Sucks when reality slaps you in the face like that, doesn't it.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-22 17:13|| 2005-11-22 17:13|| Front Page Top

#12 oh I know, Farki boy. It's all about plans. About meeting and discussing the plans over lunch. It's working well in France.

Tell me again, cause I'm not sure I ever knew it - what is the Democratic plan for fighting terror? Ah, yes. It's "diplomacy". It's working well in France.

Which of course, is why you all got your face slapped with that 403-3. Most Americans aren't as stupid as you are.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-22 17:25|| 2005-11-22 17:25|| Front Page Top

#13 Why it's our olde friend Glad, the Moron Persuader.

Posted by Shipman 2005-11-22 17:29|| 2005-11-22 17:29|| Front Page Top

#14 "...we can't win the WoT"

Agreed - within the current paradigm.

[le rant]
I have suggested, several times in the past, that a day will come when the paradigm will shift - i.e. we will finally recognize that we can't be Pollyanna and still survive. A debate that is missing is an honest one regards what we are and aren't willing to do to survive.

A small deviation to get something out that always sticks in my craw...
Most of the Hue & Cryâ¢ has been about interrogation and torture, and a faux sense that we each know what we would or would not do in a given circumstance. Then that gets summarily slapped down by the one-size-fits-all PC arguments. Some of that body of thought is distilled from experience, granted, but it's based upon a conflict between "warring powers" - nation-states conducting war as signers of the Geneva Conventions. Within that paradigm, the arguments hold.

But it's all an academic / rhetoric exercise, of course, since that is NOT the situation we face regards Islamofascism - plus you can't possibly know what you would do until you face it.

The absurd pretenses (read: the smug certainty of a fixed unchanging "position") fall away when it's personal - i.e. when it becomes REAL - to YOU. An example I introduced into a thread the other day serves (it certainly sent the one who shall not be named into a tizzy) - your family's safety. If the question is your family's survival vs not "torturing" the person(s) who can get them back safely, what would you be willing to do? Unless you've been there, you can only guess. Beyond that, it would evolve, as well, if not met with success. If A doesn't work, you'd move to B, then C. You'd have to - and arguments to the contrary are, as I said, absurd pretenses of zero substance. In war with the jihadis, where your fellows are your family, there are obvious parallels. Judging from afar is okay, we're Americans and anyone can say anything, but don't be upset if some people do not take it seriously.

The closest most people have come to torture is having their wardrobe dissed in public.

Back to the main point: survival. There will be a divide - some people will accept that we can't maintain our membership in the Order of the Garter and survive, and some won't. Chivalry, fair play, the thin thin candy shell we call civilization is a fiction we've all agreed upon - it's one of society's tenets and you'd better pass it along to your progeny or society will fuck you. It serves as a convenient means of taking the high road over opponents in debate. Nothing more. We're the Good Guys. The Bad Guy is open to demonization. I used to think, and believe, back in the days when I was someone who could vote for Jimmuh Cahteh, that the US played by the rules at all times, against sinister folks who had no rules, and we still won - in spite of it. Wow. Big-time pride. It was, in a general sense, true. Some (most?) of the military of Western powers did, indeed, play by the rules. But many individuals found that the rules must be bent or broken to succeed, to survive, so they were. Those who faced that choice and couldn't do it aren't here to explain the mistake. A famous businessman I know personally used to have a rule that I found hysterically hypocritical: "Get it done and don't tell me how you did it. Ever." Then it dawned on me that he was playing realistically - simple plausible deniability, which has an evil connotation, but isn't inherently so except for the second-guessers who want to sit in judgment upon those who actually do the heavy lifting. Parasites and political whores, mostly.

Honesty with ourselves is the pivot point that will be needed to shift the paradigm. One day, we will summarily kill those who oppose our freedoms. We will do it and move on. No MSM bitch will be there recording, second-guessing, blathering on about one tiny instant taken out of the truth of the larger context: individual survival which sums to societal survival. The fact is, they, our freedom-loving fellows, will want it done and they won't want to know how it was done - unless they're assholes seeking political advantage. And every war is followed by politicians holding investigative commissions featuring the worst of our society manipulating the well-intentioned but openly accessible levers of our system.

The paradigm of what's acceptable will shift - or we won't survive. There is an assumption that the paradigm, the ruleset, is static, Lol. Wotta total load of bullshit. It has been under construction since Day One. Hell, look at PCism - that's a ruleset change game. It has always been thus. I'm just saying some undoing is called for - some of the changes of the last century or two (lol) will get us killed. Today's collection of opponents - and we face internal seditionists as well as jihadis, work against us in many ways. PCism is a classic example visible to almost everyone. On the "battlefields" of their choosing, which include buses, weddings, pizza parlors, stopping for gas in Maryland, fragging their offices in a tent in Kuwait, etc., the jihadi types kill innocents. Those sabotaging us from within, such as the endless acts of the Dhimmidonks (e.g. Murtha), the incessant MSM memery, ANSWER, CAIR, et al. are just as dangerous and will succeed if we employ LE methods and play by the rules we've set for ourselves. They don't have any. Even these supposedly civil internal opponents, the American Surrender Monkeys, have jettisoned the rules. We might laugh and think of them as insane, but they are merely desperate. The first victim was the truth, now there's no pretense of that anywhere to be found in the dissembling of PR or the MSM. Nope. No rules. Not any. At all. We will, indeed, lose, if we stay the current course.

To take the steam out of the jihadis, as AP said, we can take away their funding. It would dry up maybe 75% of that threat in relatively short order, months, I'd guess. And we take on the banking system, with the power of sanction force where needed (Can you say numbered Swiss account?), which allows laundering and funneling "charity". At the very least, for once, we force Yagouv (Joe) Average Muzzy pay directly for the whole thing. Pretty damned hard to kill infidels if they can't afford to get out of Goatfuckistan and haven't arms or ammo or a well-funded support system. This will cut the heart out of their game and make them restart from scratch with a fraction of what they had. Note that that it is clearly the modern rise in oil revenues in the hands of Wahhabists (and their ilk) that has brought on this wave of Islamic aggression. We can't do this "by the rules". Our cherished rules. We have to give 'em up. Or else die by a thousand cuts, from within and without. China's waiting for us to bleed out.

We can't defeat the seditionists in our midst, either, by the current ruleset. They're fucking everywhere. They damned-near got J F'n Kerry elected. Man, that boggles. Not since McGovern, with the possible exception of Dukakis, have we had such a total asstard running for President. And a 1.5% swing would've done it. The rules are their protection - so the change won't come easy. Look at the strident screeching regards the Patriot Act, and the current campaign to pull what few teeth it has, if you're in doubt. They'll win, too. It will come down to throwing off the rules, by force, someday, to rid ourselves of these tools of socialism and communism. Even if we survive the Islamonutz, the Moonbats may well succeed in destroying America. They are the greater long-term threat, in fact, IMHO.

America is one whopping juicy prize. Those who make it what it is, and it's one helluvalot more than the latest ruleset, those who love and will fight for freedom are on notice.

Just my take. Sorry for the windiness - my craw's gettin' crowded, lol.
[le rant]

Posted by .com 2005-11-22 18:33|| 2005-11-22 18:33|| Front Page Top

#15 nice rant PD - If my family's safety was at stake? Hand me the saw, blowtorch and cordless drill. I will get what I need and address my maker later. No question. Someone, let's call him Mahmoud, holding back info affecting their imminent safety has already accepted his fate. I'm just fulfilling that fate

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-22 19:39|| 2005-11-22 19:39|| Front Page Top

#16 Honesty with ourselves is the pivot point that will be needed to shift the paradigm. One day, we will summarily kill those who oppose our freedoms. We will do it and move on. No MSM bitch will be there recording, second-guessing, blathering on about one tiny instant taken out of the truth of the larger context: individual survival which sums to societal survival.

Preach it, .com! For quite a while you've been shouting about how important it is that words and deeds match with precision.

This is the other side of the same coin. Personal integrity and honesty are the honorable side of plausible deniability, a thing that is too often used for weaseling but can just as easily be part of ensuring reliable action is taken in times of danger. It manifests in trusting those you delegate tasks to that the job will be done with common sense, if not honor. We already do this with our military and it's high time both our politicians and even everyday people start toeing the line on this.

Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. Not enough people still clearly remember the Nazis and what sort of horrors they portended for our world.

The Holocaust's monstrosities are similarly forgotten and so it is that the Islamist's hunger for genocide is met with simple disbelief instead of the instantaneous revulsion and grinding boot-heel it deserves.

Few understand the depravity of Islamism and thereby cannot possibly conceive of what will be required to expunge it from the face of this green earth. We will do it now, with dirty, filthy covert killings and decappings, or we will do it later with nuclear weapons. Failure is not an option and those who facilitate any lack of success, at some point, will become known as the enemy.

This is where the PC faction in America will be required to confront the superfluous nature of its contributions to society's actual foundations. If they persist in compromising this nation's survival with demands for niceity and diplomatic dilettantism, they must be shown the door, be it to some other country or hell itself, that will no longer matter when this country's continued existence is on the line.

Your last post is one of the very best I've seen from you, .com. Your points are largely shorn of any strident partisanship and instead deal with the pure and simple facts of how this country must go about surviving Islamofacism. I thank you for it.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-22 20:47|| 2005-11-22 20:47|| Front Page Top

#17 Very well said, .com. I think to some degree the paradigm has already shifted. Not to harp it, but the 403-3 shows the dems understand that it has. I also agree and disagree with Zenster Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. That's true on one level - but on another level but I think most Americans do understand. I think the press hypes that very small percentage who seek political gain or self-esteem from bashing Bush. I say small percentage because they couldn't even float Air America and the house voted 403-3. Bottom line is that most Americans do understand - though I agree that they don't comprehend the level of evil and danger that faces us.

One point I've been hoping to make - that at first seems a no-brainer, but is actually a point that I can't seem to verbalize to properly call attention to its merit - is that the Islamofascists are not like many of the other foes. The whole idea of the Kerry/French/UN ideal is that you can tame the little brown folk by giving them beads, whiskey and welfare. But it won't work with the Islamists. The Islamists will bow to no one - especially not a bunch of limp wristed intellectuals who the Islamists disdain for their weakness and ungodliness. The libs expect Iran to play the game of going out to lunch and after a few drinks, the leaders will all scratch each other's backs and make a few deals to the benefit of all present - but that's not what the Islamists have in mind. They wish to rid the earth of its pests - infidels. They have no desire to soil themselves by dining with infidels.

Well - I see that once again I have failed to properly verbalize my point. But I wish I could, because once the Bobos/moonbats/Kerry's realize that the Islamofascists intend to be the masters of the game, not the recipients of anyone else's largess, perhaps they will realize the extent of the danger we face.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-22 21:20|| 2005-11-22 21:20|| Front Page Top

#18 Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. Not enough people still clearly remember the Nazis and what sort of horrors they portended for our world.

Unfortunately very, very true. A terrible thing to say, but 9-11 was not bad enough to awaken most Americans. Fifty or sixty years ago it would have. Today we're a different nation.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-22 21:25|| 2005-11-22 21:25|| Front Page Top

#19 Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. Sir Winston Churchill, 1940 House of Commons

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-11-22 21:45|| 2005-11-22 21:45|| Front Page Top

#20 2b - I think I follow you. It is my take that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. It sports the trappings of religion, for public consumption, but in practice is no less than a model of conquest - an implacable foe to all other belief systems. It has more in common with Nazism than any religion. It simply seeks world dominion and that no other system will be allowed to coexist with it, except under its rule and thumb. Is that sympatico with your take?

This is why I have described it as a human pathogen. I posted about in short form here - I can't find the original, but I have the .DOC file, which I repost about once a year, lol.

Posted by .com 2005-11-22 22:02|| 2005-11-22 22:02|| Front Page Top

#21 If A doesn't work, you'd move to B, then C.

That's the essence of it. Societies try to have the best set of rules and safeguards consistent with addressing the problem. If the rules seriously impede addressing the problem, then some of them get ditched, as we are seeing at the moment in Australia and the UK.

The problem particularly on the Left is maintaining the rules and safeguards becomes the objective.

For me it doesn't have to be personal. If we need torture to win or reduce harm to our side, then I'm fine with torture (and BTW screw so called 'international law').

Democracies move slowly and incrementally, that's the way it's meant to work. Terrorism would need to get worse, before we see the pace and scope of change increase.

Much more likely in my opinion is a major terrorist sponsor (read Syria, Iran) will miscalculate and do something that brings the house down on them (read a non-proportionate response).

Posted by phil_b 2005-11-22 22:13|| 2005-11-22 22:13|| Front Page Top

#22 I could not agree with you more Phil.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-22 22:22|| 2005-11-22 22:22|| Front Page Top

#23 .com ...I'll have to read and respond later (got to turn off the computer) ..but thanks.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-22 22:44|| 2005-11-22 22:44|| Front Page Top

23:37 AzCat
23:34 Bardo
23:06 TZSenator
22:44 2b
22:22 Besoeker
22:15 Besoeker
22:13 phil_b
22:09 Besoeker
22:08 .com
22:04 Anonymoose
22:02 .com
22:00 Bright Pebbles
21:45 John Q. Citizen
21:42 Besoeker
21:36 Redneck Jim
21:33 Besoeker
21:25 Besoeker
21:20 2b
21:09 Glemp Flineper4549
21:03 Glemp Flineper4549
21:02 Glemp Flineper4549
20:59 Zenster
20:58 plainslow
20:58 Glemp Flineper4549