This Retribution Will Not Be Televised

[Onkel Neal]

Love this article, is a swaggering response to the "you can't win against terrorism" rant so many spouted since 9/11.

You won't be reading bulletins on the work of these people—special forces, CIA operatives, contractors—on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Their job is to make that day a slow news day. To follow their work, you have to read sites like the Long War Journal, which tells you what happened on Aug. 16, Aug. 19, and Sept. 1. And you have to read investigative stories like those by Washington Post reporters Greg Miller, Julie Tate, Dana Priest, and William Arkin, which tell you what the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command are quietly doing in the air and on the ground.

http://www.slate.com/id/2303133/

They don't know who their messing with...literally.

That isn't winning against terrorism, that is winning against a few terrorists.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, but the whole idea of a war against "terrorism" is ridiculously skewed as a plan of action. It's like a war against sarcasm. I'm glad the current administration shies away from that sort of language and sticks to talking (mostly) about results.

[AVGWarhawk]

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?" What would be Tribesman/Tchocky plan of action to win the war on terrorism? After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

[Growler]

Ultimately, whether you can win against terrorism is not so much the issue. So, "You can't fight terrorism." Does that mean you aren't going to fight at all? I mean, are you really not going to fight, just because you might not win? I can guarantee what happens if you don't fight.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

Yeah, it's not a bad way to work against groups who seek to cause you harm. I'm saying that calling it a "war against terrorism" is a stupid idea.

Also - what Growler said

[Oberon]

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

See also War on Drugs.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?" What would be Tribesman/Tchocky plan of action to win the war on terrorism? After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

War on terrorism is fought against an idea. The baddies won't just wake up
one day and give up on it. No matter how many of them you kill. It's like a virus,
unless every single one with that idea in their head is eliminated it just keeps
spreading.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Yeah, it's not a bad way to work against groups who seek to cause you harm. I'm saying that calling it a "war against terrorism" is a stupid idea.

I agree. I guess for a lack of a better description of what is going on it will remain the war on terror. It reminds me of a 'police action' in Korea.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

War on terrorism is fought against an idea. The baddies won't just wake up
one day and give up on it. No matter how many of them you kill. It's like a virus,
unless every single one with that idea in their head is eliminated it just keeps
spreading.

Certainly there are many that have very little outlook on life. Here is something they can do. Three hots, a cot and AK47 plus all the plastic explosives you can handle. Gives them a purpose all be it possibly misdirected as it were.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Love this article, is a swaggering response to the "you can't win against terrorism" rant so many spouted since 9/11.

You can choke them and keep on pressing as long as it takes keeping them weak.

Having terror under control is sort of victory but different concept from defeating other nation.

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?"

For a start you have to specify what terrorism is, then you have to take all those that fit into that definition and specify which ones in particular are you warring against and which you are not, themn you have to define what you would consider as a win against those specific groups.
War on terrorism and winning against terrorism are absolutely meaningless tripe unless you can clearly define them, a war aim that is unable to be defined is a war aim that can never be achieved which defaults the whole operation to an unwinnable war.

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

QFT!

This war started in earnest when The Prophet kicked the oracles out of Mecca. With the exception of the 50 year hiatus after WWI, it has been waged ever since.

Ask the Byzantines, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Eastern Europeans, Spanish, etc. We were lulled to sleep by the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

We all know the goal is the spread of islam by any means neccesary. At any given time in history, this has been the responsibility of the zealous, radical, violent few. While the remaining 95%+ go about their daily lives enjoying the Prophet's peace.

[AVGWarhawk]

For a start you have to specify what terrorism is, then you have to take all those that fit into that definition and specify which ones in particular are you warring against and which you are not, themn you have to define what you would consider as a win against those specific groups.

Reading this I think of profiling.

War on terrorism and winning against terrorism are absolutely meaningless tripe unless you can clearly define them, a war aim that is unable to be defined is a war aim that can never be achieved which defaults the whole operation to an unwinnable war.

Agreed. Let's go with Dowly on this. "War on a few baddies"