The War on Terror Is Over!

Originally posted by beezzer
Who won?
________________________________________________________________

And what's our next war going to be?
The War on Lactose Intolerance?
The War on Racists?
The War on Protestors?
The War on Free Speech?
The War on Guns?
The War on Christianity?

*I can hardly wait!*

The war on bunnies.

*Shrugs*

Originally posted by beezzer
Who won?

I think the fact that actually sits as a half way valid question is the heart of the problem, huh? I'm not 100% sure myself.

@Boncho



Did I really see the enemy bunny leader become a suicide bomber?!

I'll have nightmares for a week! Thanks!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by beezzer
Who won?

I think the fact that actually sits as a half way valid question is the heart of the problem, huh? I'm not 100% sure myself.

I suppose the terrorists won because half the civilized world is afraid of its shadow right about now....

So we killed a bunch of children?

Thats how they spun a while back.

Bunch of 9 year olds forced to join Al Queda.

So we lost.

Niiiiiiiiice.

I guess having the Muslim Brotherhood come over for drinks and appitizers is our way of surrenduring.

Waves white flag.


____________________________________________________________________________

On a less serious note, the war on bunnies; you'll never see us comming!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Both sides will declare a "win" for their own side, but there is not nor will there be any sort of "win". The most you can hope for, considering the way it has been prosecuted, is a favorable outcome or an unfavorable one, but there will be no "win, regardless of what the politicians - both ours and theirs - proclaim.

Trying to ally with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood is INSANE, and speaks more to the politicians going off the rails than anything else. They're in a fantasy land. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Giving in the them and declaring them "allies" in the face of all the evidence otherwise will most certainly be exploited by the Muslim Brotherhood for propagandistic purposes when THEY declare their "win" - see how they beat the west into submission - and Islam MEANS submission - and forced the west to ally with them? That
'll be their story, they'll stick with it, and they'll point at western declarations of an "alliance" as proof positive of their win.

Dumbass politicians in the west will only be able to say "see? We won, because we're not fighting them any more!" instead of "See? We won because they don't exist to BE fought any more!"

"Moderate Muslims" my ass. The Muslim Brotherhood is anything BUT "moderate".

Yeah, it's time to get out of Afghanistan if they have no intent of pursuing any sort of real win - and in the past 10 years they have shown no signs of intent to pursue a win after the first couple of months of the Afghan war - BUT if I were in charge (thank your gods I'm not) it would be handled entirely differently than what we will see.

Originally posted by wewillnotcomply666
i think they need to get the # out of there but it needs to be very very slowly. for the reason that the place needs to be stabilised before the troops leave. the have known nothing other than bombs and bullets for ten years. i think it would be a bad idea to leave so suddenly IMHO. once the "enemies" realise there is no one to keep them in check they could very well start terrorising their own people again..

So let 'em.

Their "people", Karzai and his army, have not shown themselves to be particularly concerned with OUR welfare of late. I say let the bastards duke it out amongst themselves. We're there to fight Taliban and AQ, not babysit Afghans. That babysitting is where the whole damned thing went off the rails to begin with. They lost sight of the objective and just tried to pick a new one in the form of "nation building".

Let 'em build their own goddamned nation.

sometimes people cannot read the writing on the wall...

...i fear many of you will be like that Japanese soldier hold up in the Philippine mountains for 30 years after the war ended.

just can't accept it.

From what I've read he isn't actually saying the war is over.

www.washingtontimes.com...

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is “at war with al Qaeda.”

“We are at war with al Qaeda,” he said. “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”

I understand it as they've decided that instead of us calling it a War On Terror (which encompasses nearly anything if you want it to... war on spiders anyone?) it is now that we are at war with al Qaeda. Aside from that I don't believe anything major is really changing.

reply to post by michaelbrux


i'm reading Onoda's wikipedia now: en.wikipedia.org...

people would send them notes that the war was over but he considered it Allied Propaganda.

please guys...come down from the mountain. the war is over.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well you're welcome to your opinion but I think you are posting exaggerated slanted examples...

Homecoming parties for our enemies?

Really?

Dialogue with ones enemies has been how most conflicts throughout history brought those conflicts to an end.

edit on 24-4-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, Slayer. I gotta disagree with you on this one. I'm not willing to "dialog" with them until after I see how it shakes out. Hell, I'm still not quite ready to sit down to beer and borscht with the Russians yet!

I'm thinking a fallback, regroup, and reorganize for the inevitable fallout is in order.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
sometimes people cannot read the writing on the wall...

...i fear many of you will be like that Japanese soldier hold up in the Philippine mountains for 30 years after the war ended.

just can't accept it.

Not "can't".

WON'T.

You do as you see fit, and make sure you place your bets that I will do them same, as I see it.

The war on terror will never be over, it will be carried out in one form or another, wars will always be with us,

The war on 'terror' is in full motion.

Look at the police state growing around you to 'protect' you from 'terror'. It's been said time and time again, but this war on 'terror' is an invisible boogeyman and is very useful for the elites. They just drop the 'terrorist' card on any middle eastern country and that gives them the 'right' to invade, i really don't think they are willing to let that go just yet.

The real threat to my freedoms and liberties IS NOT 'TERRORIST', the threat comes from people who keep themselves willfully ignorant and keep themselves in the dark.... allowing this out of control NWO to slowly take away MY liberties MY privacy and MY freedom.


Cheers~

Terror is just an idea, a feeling. You cant fight nor win against an idea.

So...tell me again why we still need the TSA and NDAA?

The war against the American people has begun and we have already lost..

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Friend, the "War on Terror" will never be over. Ever read into the Report from Iron Mountain?
(Bold Text Mine)

“The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. . . . War readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's total economy.” For Stone – and many others – it was clear that the government was a co-existence of various interest groups: the oil industry; the pharmaceutical industry; but mainly, the military-industrial complex… warmongers.

Some say the report is a hoax, but even if it is, it certainly seems like the Military Industrial Complex is following it to a tee.

The Report’s recommendations were:
- a giant space-research programme whose goal was largely impossible to achieve (a black hole, budget-wise and hence able to feed the economy);
- create a new, non-human enemy, e.g. the potential threat of an extra-terrestrial civilisation
- create a new threat to Mankind, e.g. pollution
- new ways of limiting births, e.g. via adding drugs to food or water supply
- create fictitious alternate enemies
- create an omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force.

This report pointed out that the authority of the government over the people stemmed from its ability to wage war. Therefore, without war the government might cease to exist, people would no longer need government without a war to prosecute.

When wars end one side wins?
or,
Surrenders?
or,
fraternizes with the enemy
or,
is the enemy with in
www.washingtontimes.com...

In addition to the threat of violent jihad, America faces another, even more toxic danger - a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, that would be the same organization to which President Obama recently transferred $1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump-sum payment. For him to do so, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions born of fully justified concerns about the nature and direction of the Shariah-adherent government the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidentially directed waiver came despite the following: the Brotherhood-dominated government’s hostage-taking of American democracy activists; murderous Islamist rampages against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities; the toleration and abetting of escalating violence against Israel in and from the Sinai; and official threats to jettison the 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state. Matters have only gotten worse since the president’s largesse was made available in an unusual upfront lump-sum payment.

reply to post by nenothtu


Keep your friends close, Keep your enemies closer...

No?

Originally posted by autowrench
This report pointed out that the authority of the government over the people stemmed from its ability to wage war. Therefore, without war the government might cease to exist, people would no longer need government without a war to prosecute.

Then...

Wouldn't this discussed story be sort of them shooting themselves in the foot? The general public [Those of us who actually bother paying attention - You, I and the like] will now focus more not on the wars but on our Government's actions.

The way it should have always been IMO