are the terrorists winning

[vol_in_il]

Originally Posted by joevol320

i was listening to a radio show and the guy was talking about how most of America suffers whenever there is a failed attempt at blowing up a plane.

We react by putting more airline security procedures on millions Americans because of failed attempts by a handfull of whackos. millions of Americans suffer because of political correctness. This has to tip the scales in favor of terrorists.

giving them the right to legal counsel in this country, is a win for them...

It's absolutely pathetic

[Oldvol75]

Just put a small pig on each plane and fly on!

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by MontereyVol

I'm not, but don't worry about it.

I never worry.

But FYI, the ROEs have changed since we now live in Obanastan.

We were paralyzed by red tape, beaten by our own team.

This same mentality is evident in McChrystal’s tactical directive that essentially promulgates new rules of engagement under a single signature. The rules as they stood were restrictive enough, and if McChrystal had wanted to calibrate his reports a closed door meeting would have been the best option. Instead, publishing the new rules has opened up new space for the insurgents according to the Pentagon.

Maybe you don't understand promulgate???


You need to get off Silligan's Island once in a while.

[Illinois Hokie]

Originally Posted by volfanjustin

I would agree, the terrorists are winning mainly because we are not fighting back. They are at war with us but we are not at war with them.

Our problem with all of this is we are always on defense instead of being on offense. We always react to what the terrorists are doing, they are always a step ahead of the U.S.
And then the authorities put these idiotic policies in place that make it a pain to travel and are not very effective.

I dunno, it's starting to look like Obama's gonna open up a can of whoop ass on Yemen.

And can sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan - where the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 live - be considered being on defense rather than offense?

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by Illinois Hokie

I dunno, it's starting to look like Obama's gonna open up a can of whoop ass on Yemen.

And can sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan - where the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 live - be considered being on defense rather than offense?

None of the people who attacked us on 9/11 lived in Afghanistan.

Obama is opening a can of whoop ass on America.

I know the tribal code, the code is you are not a man if you can't retaliate for any harm done to your family anywhere in the world.

And we have a joke for a homelamd security secreteary who says we should watch our own homecoming military personel as being potential domestic terrorist threats.

I ask you, how isnane can it get??

[Illinois Hokie]

Originally Posted by gsvol

None of the people who attacked us on 9/11 lived in Afghanistan.

Obama is opening a can of whoop ass on America.

I know the tribal code, the code is you are not a man if you can't retaliate for any harm done to your family anywhere in the world.

And we have a joke for a homelamd security secreteary who says we should watch our own homecoming military personel as being potential domestic terrorist threats.

I ask you, how isnane can it get??

Our military is not immune to the propaganda of terrorist organizations.

There are numerous Muslim Americans like Nidal Malik Hisan who might be swayed by the bastardized interpretation of the Koran taught by Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorist organizations.

It's probably not a bad idea to keep an eye on veterans returning from the front lines.

Please note I also used the present tense: they live in Afghanistan, and have done so during the Iraq fiasco our previous President led us blindly into.

[miamicane]

YouTube - A Soldier Awake....

[rjd970]

Calling this a "War on Terror" is part of the problem. How you declare war on a tactic or ideology is beyond me...to say nothing of the fact that it is rooted in theology and socio-political-economic foundations....something of which the military isn't ideally suited for combating. It's like declaring war on facism, or communism and expecting major military operations and combat movements to solve it. I mean, the Cold War was won primarily on the economic front, not the military.

The U.S. military, for all its capabilities, just isn't suited for this. You can kill all the terrorists you want, but you will never kill them all and it only takes one to detonate a nuclear device in Times Square. If we really want to combat terrorism, you have to look at what is causing it and attack that.

Our problem is we are fighting a fire we can't beat instead of addressing what causes and feeds the fire.

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by Illinois Hokie

Our military is not immune to the propaganda of terrorist organizations.

There are numerous Muslim Americans like Nidal Malik Hisan who might be swayed by the bastardized interpretation of the Koran taught by Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorist organizations.

It's probably not a bad idea to keep an eye on veterans returning from the front lines.

Please note I also used the present tense: they live in Afghanistan, and have done so during the Iraq fiasco our previous President led us blindly into.

Terry Nichols learned his bomb making skills in the Philipines from muslim terrorists and make hundreds of phone calls there leading up to the OKC federal building bombing and they were assisted by Iraqi intelligence operatives. Most of that never came out because Reno and Holder killed the FBI investigation.

It's nuts to have a muslim psychiatrist counseling our troops to begin with and there is nothing bastardized about the koran as taught by al-Qaeda, Hamas et al.

All you have to do is throroughly study islamic writings to find that all they teach is right out of muslim 'holy' books.

BTW, we have fared better in Iraq than in Afghanistan where there is no end in sight.

Obama’s Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Costing Our Troops Lives.

The new ROE should have been dealt with as a classified memorandum of encouragement and understanding to consider holistic consequences of actions rather than a change to formal rules by which our Marines and Soldiers are prosecuted by courts. Yet the damage has been and continues to be done by poor decisions at the highest levels of leadership.

So al-Qaeda moves it's main training ground to Yemen now (present tense,) so do we send in troops???

Will we end up with troops in all 57 (or obama's 58 count, counting America,) countries under the thumb of islamic sharia law???

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Calling this a "War on Terror" is part of the problem. How you declare war on a tactic or ideology is beyond me...to say nothing of the fact that it is rooted in theology and socio-political-economic foundations....something of which the military isn't ideally suited for combating. It's like declaring war on facism, or communism and expecting major military operations and combat movements to solve it. I mean, the Cold War was won primarily on the economic front, not the military.

The U.S. military, for all its capabilities, just isn't suited for this. You can kill all the terrorists you want, but you will never kill them all and it only takes one to detonate a nuclear device in Times Square. If we really want to combat terrorism, you have to look at what is causing it and attack that.

Our problem is we are fighting a fire we can't beat instead of addressing what causes and feeds the fire.

What do you think causes and feeds the 'fire?'

[OrangeEmpire]

Until we have the balls to pull off an Entebbe we are not going to win any thing!

[Daddy Gee]

So al-Qaeda moves it's main training ground to Yemen now (present tense,) so do we send in troops???

Will we end up with troops in all 57 (or obama's 58 count, counting America,) countries under the thumb of islamic sharia law???

great point... al qaeda knows that as long as they are a moving target, the US has no means of making a significant strike against them... for example, after a nuke in NYC...

[overseasorange2]

Before it's all over, all passengers will have to fly naked.

[BeecherVol]

Originally Posted by Illinois Hokie

I dunno, it's starting to look like Obama's gonna open up a can of whoop ass on Yemen.

And can sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan - where the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 live - be considered being on defense rather than offense?

Obama, and whooping anything is hilarious.

Good luck finding that can.

[BeecherVol]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Calling this a "War on Terror" is part of the problem. How you declare war on a tactic or ideology is beyond me...to say nothing of the fact that it is rooted in theology and socio-political-economic foundations....something of which the military isn't ideally suited for combating. It's like declaring war on facism, or communism and expecting major military operations and combat movements to solve it. I mean, the Cold War was won primarily on the economic front, not the military.

The U.S. military, for all its capabilities, just isn't suited for this. You can kill all the terrorists you want, but you will never kill them all and it only takes one to detonate a nuclear device in Times Square. If we really want to combat terrorism, you have to look at what is causing it and attack that.
Our problem is we are fighting a fire we can't beat instead of addressing what causes and feeds the fire.

What would that be?