Were The Terrorists Right All Along?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


I think you have it backwards. The Galil is much, much more expensive than the AK. The Israeli designers took the best of the AK and the best of the M-16 series, and combined the two.

You'll further note that the machining and tolerances on the Galil are much greater than on the typical AK which ranges from really sorry to fairly accurate. The best of the AK's will not match the accuracy of the M-16 family, as the AK is really, really loose, which in turn enables it to operate in spite of mud and crud.

The Israeli's never, ever, build inferior weaponry.

You can generally buy about three or four AK's for the price of one Galil.

Quality.

It costs.

reply to post by JPhish


Well, slick, it's rather difficult for US territorial white men to kill South American natives and MesoAmerican natives, and Inuit natives and American Indian natives west of the Mississippi over a 500-year period when they weren't present.

Only a handful of white men made it west of the Mississippi before the 1820's, and many were killed during the process.

Since the present-day territorial US was basically white man free west of the Mississippi, and since present day US white men were NOT in MesoAmerica, nor South America, nor the sub-Arctic regions - your postulation is impossible.

You keep changing what you said, and I'm telling you that your claims that American white men killed 100 million American Indians in the territorial US since 1820 is complete and utter fabrication.

You want to bitch and moan about Meso and South America - take that up with the Spanish.

Originally posted by dooper
Give the villages a choice - side with the Taliban and suffer obliteration - or side with us and kill the Taliban.

No in-between.

To you and i, that seems like it should be an easy choice. But imagine, if obama permitted russian and chinese troops to come here, and hunt down militias. Imagine if some russian troops knocked on your door, and gave you the same choice.

I know that will never happen, but it's something to think about...

I've tried to bite my tongue, and not get involved in this one, but I find myself weakening.

In a manner of speaking, the terrorists were "right" in their distaste for our government. Unfortunately, they had the value-added "wrongness" in attacking ONLY our civilians. Our civilians were not "collateral damage" to them, they were the TARGET. Big difference there, to my mind anyhow. Now they wanna come along and sweet talk us with offers of all being well if we just get with the program.

Not me. I've had some experience with Islam, and Dooper is right. The objective is to convert or erase all "unbelievers", with the minor exception of christians and jews, "people of the book", who would be allowed to exist in subservience to muslims, as long as they agree to pay the jizya tax, as a tribute to the superiority of Islam. Those are the only options they see.

Not me. I see other options, and will execise them. Should any doubt what I say, I say to dig into the source material. Don't stop at the Quran, read the Hadith, too. Read Bukhari and the other authors Dooper mentions. It will round out your viewpoint. Don't stop there. Talk to muslims. Understand what they MEAN as well as what's said.

If you're gonna have an opinion, make sure it's an informed one.

I'm also sick to death of the pissing contest going on about Israel "occupying" "Palestinian" lands. I call BS. Jordan is Palestinian land. Where is the outrage there? Why will none of Palestine's neighbors get up off of enough land for a Palestinian "home"? It's simply because Palestinians fight and cause trouble WHEREVER they go, and even the Arab neighbors want none of that. Don't believe me? Check out the recent (last 50 years or so) history of Lebanon, or the even more recent history of Gaza vs Egypt.

As to the matter of whether an entity must be a "state" to declare war - to those who die in the war, "state" declaration or not, it matters nary a whit what the status of the declaratory entity was. They aren't any less dead because it was "only" an organization that declared war and opened hostilities. Sorry 'bout that, but evidently my neanderthalian mind can't grasp the intricacies and nuances of state politics vs. non-state politics. Dead is dead.

In the matter of weaponry discussed above, the Mossberg 500 series are a fine line of fighting guns. My own is a model 590. Yes, it has a pistol grip, but it also has a full, solid butt to go along with that grip. A pistol grip ONLY on a shotgun is sexy looking, great for photo ops, but much less that desirable in a real live fight. I carried a Taurus .38 as a duty weapon for 8 years or so, and truly hated it. I had impressive Q scores with it, but hated it all the same. Too fragile. MAC-11 - another "sexy" gun, but less than optimal. I know a guy that shot off his left index finger with one, not having a proper grip on it. Too heavy for a pistol, too light for a SMG. Beats a rock in a fight, until it jams. At that point I'd put my money on the rock. They make nice pictures, though. The AK = a fine weapon. Tough as nails, easy to use and get trained up on. Readily available. I take issue with the ballistics of the 7.62x39 versions, but mine is one of the dinky little 5.45's. Makes a mess, and ammo is getting scarce, but anything has drawbacks, eh? I'm lost on the "integral" barrel part. Maybe I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm completely unfamiliar with that concept. Aren't ALL barrels integral to the weapon?

Yeah, the terrorists had some "right" points, but no, they aren't "right". It's never right to attack civilians and bypass your declared enemy. That just pisses your enemy off, and gets your lands "invaded".

The cycle continues from there.

Originally posted by nenothtu
As to the matter of whether an entity must be a "state" to declare war - to those who die in the war, "state" declaration or not, it matters nary a whit what the status of the declaratory entity was. They aren't any less dead because it was "only" an organization that declared war and opened hostilities. Sorry 'bout that, but evidently my neanderthalian mind can't grasp the intricacies and nuances of state politics vs. non-state politics. Dead is dead.

That wasn't my point. My point is that the general population of those countries, aren't the ones who attacked or declared war on us. It would be the same concept as sending massive troops to "war" in mexico, to take out the cartels. Large, uniformed armies are in place to combat other large uniformed armies, that's my understanding anyway. I'm not saying the terrorist's threats and attacks shouldn't be answered. They should be hunted down and killed decisively, but with as little impact on the general populations as possible, IMO, in order to cut their recruiting base. Otherwise it's like cutting heads of a hydra, you just make more by killing non-combatants families. I personally think the job is best done by special forces. They live for those type missions, i'm sure you of all people are aware of that.

I also just can't agree that all muslims believe in world domination, just a small, but vocal number of extremists. But you're right, i've never talked to them on their turf, i only know muslims here in the states. There are also extremist christian groups that feel the same way, and also carry out terrorist attacks. Not as often, but christians here have much more to lose than muslims there.

A pistol grip ONLY on a shotgun is sexy looking, great for photo ops, but much less that desirable in a real live fight.

I agree, my buddy has the exact same gun as me, but with a full stock. It's much more comfortable to shoot, the pistol grip jacks my thumb when i'm shooting anything more than bird shot. The mossberg was a purchase i made long ago, my first gun. I loved the look of it, i admit.

I carried a Taurus .38 as a duty weapon for 8 years or so, and truly hated it. I had impressive Q scores with it, but hated it all the same. Too fragile.

I haven't noticed any fragility, but i probably haven't used mine in the conditions you may have. I use mine as a snake/ bear gun while gold prospecting. It was small, packed a good enough punch, and was affordable. I plan to replace it eventually with a thunder 5, a revolver that fires 5 .410's.

MAC-11 - another "sexy" gun, but less than optimal. I know a guy that shot off his left index finger with one, not having a proper grip on it. Too heavy for a pistol, too light for a SMG. Beats a rock in a fight, until it jams.

Mine doesn't jam very often, and i've put alot of 32 round clips through it. But i clean my weapons religiously, not sure if that was the case with your buddy. That's crazy he shot his index finger off with it, musta been holding it like an assault rifle...i shoot it like a pistol very easily. I don't use both hands.

I'm lost on the "integral" barrel part. Maybe I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm completely unfamiliar with that concept. Aren't ALL barrels integral to the weapon?

Not integral, integrated. It's not the slant cut barrel that most AK's have. It's got a western style muzzle brake.

reply to post by 27jd

I apologize for short-sentencing. What happens is the Taliban love to pass through villages, demand support, and they'll kill any elders or others that don't agree with their ideas on how they should be living their lives.

God forbid they should have a school and teach girls anything.

So the Taliban intimidates and murders those in the villages. They take what they want or need, and to hell with the welfare of the villages.

To counter this move, you arm the villages, you patrol the villages as frequently as you can, you put recon and sensors outside the villages to detect intrusion, and you ensure that throughout the village, many, many communication devices are distributed.

Upon first warning that the Taliban approach, someone damn well better call. Quick reaction or MIKE forces should be in the air within a few minutes.

But if the Taliban comes, intimidates them, and no one calls - then you let them know it's their ass.

Believe me, the Taliban are not that popular, and are nothing like any American militia or freedom fighters would be.

And when you find the Taliban, since there are no uniforms, there should be no prisoners.

And if you catch them in transit, make sure they just quietly disappear.

Nothing like mysterious, continuous disappearances to make a territory "forbidden."

reply to post by dooper


Yeah, i wouldn't like living under the taliban either. I just don't know if being born under that kind of oppression, if the people are just accustomed to it. I've never been there, so i take your word that the people they oppress hate them. But i think they are bound by all kinds of crazy customs as well.

This debate is truly hard for me, in that i strongly believe in letting people choose their own lifestyle, and i feel our soldiers shouldn't be policing populations. But, like i said before, i also have a STRONG desire to protect innocents from evil men, like the taliban, who kill women and children to maintain control...so your points are not lost on me.

reply to post by 27jd


I have to agree, and I've said it in other posts in other threads, that it's my profound conviction that these types of asymetrical wars are best countered with SpecOps raids and ambushes and such. Additionally, there should be larger units on call and in place to assault when the enemy tries to outmass the hunter-killer teams, but those larger units should NOT be used for general patrol or policing actions. Air support on call would be a must.

The problem in Afghanistan started when the conventional generals wanted to grab their piece of the pie, but do it NICELY. A Chinese fire drill ensued. When Kabul fell from the grasp of the Taliban, there were 50 US troopers in country. 100 boots on the ground, and that's all. the locals (Northern Alliance) did most of the work to take their own country back, and that's how it should be. The conventional generals mucked it up.

Afghanistan has been at war for so long, I doubt that there are many, if any, left alive now who can remember a time of peace there. As in any conflict, the villagers only want to be left alone to pursue their lives in peace. The brunt of the fighting should be incumbent upon them, with US aid and support, in the form of hunter-killer teams, air support, and mobile strike forces for massed adversaries. Then a lasting peace could be achieved, as the locals would enforce it themselves, having learned that they could. Complicating that is the local culture, which in many particulars mirrors Taliban, but not as extremely.

It also should be remembered that the Taliban, per se, did not start as terrorists. They started as the government of Afghanistan (well, about 60% of the territory anyhow), and devolved into terrorism, and the arms of Al Qaida, after they crossed the US by giving aid and sanctuary to our declared enemies, and were deposed. Now they too are our enemies, and justifiably so, as far as I'm concerned. Wars of this nature can't be hemmed in by national borders, since it's not a nation that the war is prosecuted against. We need to be able to go to and close with the enemy wherever he may find refuge, and leave no rest for the wicked.

I'm torn on Iraq, on the one hand, that war should not have been opened when it was. We were already occupied elsewhere. On the other hand, it would have had to have been done eventually. Geopolitics are not my forte, but I DO know that the radicals have stated that Baghdad is to be the future capitol of the Global Caliphate. You read that right, that's what they said, and what they plan.

Not all Muslims are violent jihadists, but the vast majority long for a global Islam. MOST intend to bring that about by "peaceful" takeovers, conversions of the kafrs. A large minority believe that the only way is by violent conquest. The end goal is the same for both factions, it's just the means they disagree on. A small number are willing to live and let live. Those folks have brought Islam into the 21st century, but not all have followed.

So then not all muslims are the enemy, nor are they terrorists. The fact remains that the vast majority of terrorists in the world these days are muslims, though. It's hard for some folks to keep the two concepts apart.

I'll fight no man over his religion, but if he wants to bring a "holy war" to me, he should be prepared to die for his god. If anyone tries to kill you, well, you kill them right back, and neither politics nor religion factor into it. Survival is the ONLY factor. Religion or politics? Those are the OTHER guy's problems. Sometimes it devolves into a mixture of religion and politics, political religion if you will. THAT is the main point where the terrorists were not right all along. They tend to conflate the two into one.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Geopolitics are not my forte, but I DO know that the radicals have stated that Baghdad is to be the future capitol of the Global Caliphate. You read that right, that's what they said, and what they plan.

I agree with you completely about how to best handle the afghan situation, as well as iraq being a poor decision at the time. But in my opinion regarding the caliphate, saddam hussein would never have let radical muslims get a foot hold in iraq. That's what perplexed me about the whole iraq situation, and the timing. If anything he would have been a valuable ally in the war against extreme islam, and it's not like we haven't teamed up with bad people in the past. He was a murderous thug of a man, but he was very hard on fundamentalists in iraq, since in his eyes he was the supreme voice there, not allah. I think he very strongly believed extremists were a threat to him, since the very reason bin laden was kicked out of saudi arabia, is because he threw a fit about the U.S. being called on to stop the kuwait situation, when bin laden wanted to take his mujahadeen to fight saddam. Saddam even offered assistance to the U.S. and his condolences after 9/11, although everybody just blew him off as being full of crap. Then the bush admin did everything they could to convince us that saddam had a hand in 9/11, even though he didn't.






[edit on 16-9-2009 by 27jd]

reply to post by nenothtu

Neno, you more carefully explain EXACTLY what I was thinking, and you do a much better job of conveying the reasoning and logic.

I fear I'm a bit more blunt which frequently causes me to be misunderstood.

I appreciate your views and your grasp not only on the ground situation, but the military aspect of exactly what is needed.

Our generals in my opinion aren't worth a damn. The vast bulk have never taken any scalps, and they apply linear tactics in a non-linear conflict.

This could end conclusively with less than 10,000 hand-picked men.

A damn shame.

reply to post by dooper


i haven't been changing my story, you've been changing my story. I said the settlers from Europe (Britain) and the people of the future united states are responsible for the near annihilation of the indigenous people. If you take the time to do the math I'm certain that you will find that the number of deaths must be over 100 million.

It's what i believe.

If you don't share my beliefs, that's OK.

Best of luck to you in your pursuit of truth.




[edit on 9/17/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by 27jd
Imagine if some russian troops knocked on your door, and gave you the same choice.

I know that will never happen, but it's something to think about...

Perhaps i spoke too soon, although it don't think the russians buy into obama being the communist type....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think anyone with a brain realizes that we don't live in a true Democracy anymore. Our leaders are chosen by an electoral college who take our votes into "consideration". Whether they pick the man your state most voted for is entirely up to them. Bush was not put into the White House in his second term because we voted him in there, he lost the popular vote, but won the election with electoral votes. This is the quote from Benjamin Franklin that should have been used. "Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none."

reply to post by SLAYER69


Do you mean those hired thugs the al-CIA -DUH? trained for special ops?

Every attack was a BANKSTER Bankrolled False Flag Operation. They are the CIA's bosses not the POTUS and certainly not US ever tells them what to do.

Look up Major General Smedley Darlington Butler and "War is a Racket".
A TWICE decorated Congressional Medal of Honor winner AND the Commandant of the US Marines. If you know ANYTHING, you know this man could virtually "walk on water".

The BANKSTERS are behind every major conflict of the 20th Century, too. Wash the Suds from your ears.

Then Google "Timeline of the Rothschilds" by DB Smith and Andrew Hitchcock.

Time to smell the coffee, GRUNT.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Do you mean those hired thugs the al-CIA -DUH? trained for special ops?

Could you possibly be a bit more forthcoming on your rationale for saying this? Got any backup there?

If not, then the rest of the post is similarly suspect of being thoroughly unbelievable.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
Time to smell the coffee, GRUNT.

Well when you're finished pulling your head out of your pimply backside.

You don't have to Google anything. I'll bring them right here to you.

The New Great Game

Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order

Emergency Broadcast - New World Order Ahead!

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Do you mean those hired thugs the al-CIA -DUH? trained for special ops?

Every attack was a BANKSTER Bankrolled False Flag Operation. They are the CIA's bosses not the POTUS and certainly not US ever tells them what to do.

Look up Major General Smedley Darlington Butler and "War is a Racket".
A TWICE decorated Congressional Medal of Honor winner AND the Commandant of the US Marines. If you know ANYTHING, you know this man could virtually "walk on water".

The BANKSTERS are behind every major conflict of the 20th Century, too. Wash the Suds from your ears.

Then Google "Timeline of the Rothschilds" by DB Smith and Andrew Hitchcock.

Time to smell the coffee, GRUNT.

That's what they want you to believe. Do some unbiased research and you will find that the situation is MUCH more complex than that. This is not a simple "us v them" or "them v us" scenario.

I gave money to a charity last year and even helped at some of their fund-raisers. I found out recently that one of the faces for the organisation was taking extra money from the donations and not declaring it as his normal salary. I no longer work for the charity. Am I now a fraudster?

[edit on 18/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by breakingdradles


how many other nations have military bases in america?
how many other nations have american bases in them?

enough said.

All I have to say on this subject is. If someone attacks us they die. If we quit our empire building and pull back to sustainable defensive positions with our good allies, we may not be attacked as often. Now you have the problem with letting countries fall to other countries. Now, is that any of our business? That is another 400 comment thread. The reason I believe we are empire building is the military industrial complex. This is such a tangled web. Yes the Fanatical Muslims are a problem. But can we continue to be the world police. Another 400 comment thread. All of these questions are answered in a very nice document, called The Constitution of the United States. If their is no law, their is anarchy.

It's time to wake up bud. Open your eyes a bit

www.lewrockwell.com...

the USA occupies over 70 percent of the countries in the world. We are quickly becoming the new superpower of the modern era.