Let’s get real

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said the plan for fighting war is “
one, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win. And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”
A family member told me on the weekend the problem is we marginalize the Muslims.  Not that the extremists among them murder innocents; not that they rape and decapitate woman or sell them into slavery; not that they decapitate POWs by the thousands; not that they turn up and slaughter 2000 people in Nigeria; not that they turn up at schools and kill girls simply because they are at school; but that we marginalize them. With thinking like that no wonder we are losing the war. The war is against Islamic extremists, not against Muslims and the rational civilized Muslims need to get on the bandwagon and join the fight  They are getting slaughtered as well. Je suis Charlie gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling but achieves absolutely nothing.  The extremists look at these displays of western "No action but plenty of words and graphics" and smile.  They have us reacting as pacifists when, as LTCOL Peters says, we  need to hunt them down and kill them. The "marginalized' Muslims come to our country, one presumes to be free of the uncivilized places where they come from, and then the young men go to the mosques and listen to preachers advocating that they work to create exactly the same uncivilized conditions in their new country. The mosques are creating the extremists and we let them. The "marginalized' go off the rape, decapitate and kill other Muslims or westerners, show decapitation movies on YouTube and when they tire of it and feel a need for more of our decadent, Kafir social security money they fly back home. And we let them in. The media are printing reams of opinions on the problems of Islamophobia; worrying about violence that isn't happening at the exact same time that the extremist Muslims are slaughtering innocents. The problem isn't Islamophobia, it's Islam in it's extreme interpretations.

21 comments

  • Generally I’d agree with Lt.Col Peters, however there are a few other things we can do, the first is accept that the enemy has changed the rules of war and adapt to them – the enemy deliberately targets civilians, so to quote the great Air Marshal Harris “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind.” simply put Islamic societies are generally tribal societies, a great strength from a security perspective, but a colossal weakness against a society willing to conduct reprisals.

    Secondly once you accept that the enemy has gone for decentralised attacks (“sad loners” or as the media prefers to call them “lone wolves”), you need to accept that a decentralised defence is necessary, fortunately that model exists and is both cheap and reasonably successful (no defence is 100%) – the US “concealed carry” approach, laws would need to be modified to support it, but in wartime modifying laws is hardly a new idea.

    • Concealed carry the solution? Let’s get real.
      Read about an experiment conducted by “The Truth About Guns” – an organisation that promotes gun ownership – http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/13/gun-owners-participate-in-simulation-of-paris-massacre/

      • Again your cite doesn’t support the conclusion you say it does – there were instances in the “simulation” where at least one of the terrorists was killed. in real life there was no possibility of that happening and the terrorists knew it, so they were able to move and act with impunity.
        Had they known that there was a real possibility that they would be entering a building where possibly everyone carries a gun, it would have seriously impacted on their ability to move at will.
        The only way this “simulation” could have simulated that reality is if the defenders had live rounds to induce real fear, regardless, even in such an invalid “simulation” 50% of the attackers were killed, that’s a way better result than in real life.

      • You really should read up on the stuff you quote before you quote it numbers –

        “Two heavily armed individuals against one person with 18 rounds”

        Hmmm, but with concealed carry it is quite possible that many people in the building, particularly one that faces the threats this office did, might be armed.

        “it appears that in the majority of the scenarios the defender is able to successfully kill one of the terrorists before they themselves are killed (the definition of “killed” is a hit on the attacker in a vital location before the attacker can fire back). While it might seem like another “no win” scenario, the fact remains that a single armed defender — even one with very little training — is able to successfully kill and stop at least one terrorist. The problem in this scenario is that there are two terrorists as attackers, and a single armed defender does not appear to be able to stop both of them.

        Even when confronted with heavily armed and well trained attackers, a single armed defender is capable of stopping at least one of the attackers.”

        That looks like a much better success rate than happened in real life, without access to any weapons.

        and then we have fogged protective masks –

        “The biggest problem reported by the volunteers was that their masks were constantly fogging up. Given the cold nights in north Texas and the lack of heating in the training area, the required safety equipment became more of a burden than expected. Many volunteers complained that they were unable to see the attackers at all when they finally entered the room, and were forced to simply shoot in their general direction.”

  • A family member told me on the weekend the problem is we marginalize the Muslims
    It’s not as simple as that, but there is truth in the statement.
    I’ve personally witnessed veiled Muslim women being abused in the foulest terms in quiet old Toowoomba. If I was husband/brother/son of one of these women, I’d be livid. Perhaps a ratbag in a mosque might tip me over the edge.
    Abusing what you cal “rational civilized Muslims” is hardly conducive to getting their vocal support against terrorism.
    Unless you’re living under a rock, you’d be aware of a multitude of local Muslim leaders speaking out – http://www.regionalinterfaith.org.au/home/oceania-news/1205-australia-imams-council-condemns-beheading-photo.html
    And – http://www.ibtimes.com/moderate-muslims-use-jesuischarlie-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack-paris-17759
    The atrocities are happening in areas that are largely still tribal. It doesn’t excuse them, they are despicable, but these evils need to be separated from vilification of minorities occurring here out of ignorance.
    Attacking the jihadists and eliminating them, and eliminating vilification of Muslims are two strategies in the same war. Let’s get real and do both.
    As for “concealed carry”. If you want to see the rate of gun fatalities in this country approach that of the US (more than 10 times ours per head of population) go for it. Or perhaps emigrate to the USA if you think it’s safer.

  • Again numbers demonstrates his selective stupidity.

    Far more supposedly moderate muslims support killing unbelievers and those who mock the prophet (it is a requirement spelled out clearly in the Koran) – Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

    but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”

    then we have the mocking related –

    Qur’an (6:93) – “Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?” If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most “wicked”.

    Qur’an (33:57) – “Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained”

    Qur’an (33:61) – [continues from above] “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

    and given your track record of lying, again, I simply do not believe your claims to have witnessed abuse in Toowoomba. provide proof to support your claims.
    Given that you are both a liar and a fool numbers, I can see why you believe the ‘rate of gun fatalities’ in the US is an argument against concealed carry. Very few killings are committed by those with a concealed carry permit in the US, and vastly fewer of those killings are considered crimes.

    • Far more supposedly moderate muslims support killing unbelievers and those who mock the prophet (it is a requirement spelled out clearly in the Koran) – Quran (2:191-193)

      Read any Leviticus lately? I wonder how “moderate” Christians interpret these scripts –

      Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

      Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

      Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

      Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

      Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

      If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

      If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

      If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

      If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?

      If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)

      Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

      If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

      People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

      Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

      Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

      • Your problem Princess, is that Muslims regularly act on the Koranic requirements, Christians do not.

        Hardly surprising given that the koran is the direct, word of allah as revealed to the final prophet, wheras the bible is a collection of stories written down by various people after the fact.

        BTW, how would you feel about stacking up the Christian terrorist murder rate for the last decade v that of Muslim terrorists?

        There are none so blind as those who will not think numbers.

  • Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    You poor devil, Kev.

    You have a Numbers infestation.

    He was banned from Catallaxy for blatant trolling, and it has to be bad for Sinc to do that.

    • I let him post so people can see the problem we have in this country. It however does give others a chance to vent their frustrations so there is some good.

  • He was banned from Catallaxy for blatant trolling, and it has to be bad for Sinc to do that.
    I was banned for pointing out that the mining industry in Australia is heavily subsidised. That’s blasphemy on Catallaxy. Sinc is the Mineral Council of Australia’s go to academic when they want a biased report.
    The irony of being banned from a blog that trumpets freedom of expression is completely lost on many dimwits who post there, especially the example above.

    • I was banned for pointing out that the mining industry in Australia is heavily subsidised

      and for taking a contrary view to every comment…and for derailing threads and pontificating about the evils of the Libs and conscription…and….the list goes on. If Sinc told you it was because of the mining subsidy comment I would suggest it was just the trigger he needed. I recall people were pleading to get you kicked off.

      • So taking a “contrary view” is not acceptable?
        That really is funny, given the rubbish routinely posted on the Cat about free speech – repealing 18c etc.
        It should be called “hypocrisy” – not “catallaxy”.
        That would be a more honest description of content.

        • Contrary view to every comment is not acceptable. If you disagree with everything said at the Cat then go elswhere.
          Oh hang on, you have

          • 99% of Westerners would not know Leviticus if he bit them on the arse.
            There’s a lot of good ole boys in the bible belt of the USA (home of the Tea Party) who would be deeply offended by that comment. You know, the ones who kick up a stink if the schools try to teach Darwin’s theories.
            And there are plenty of Muslims (a few of my acquaintance) who haven’t opened the Koran since they were kids.
            The problem is fundamentalism, not Islam.
            I’m surprised I had to spell it out.

          • Contrary view to every comment is not acceptable.
            Given this thread is (apparently) about “getting real” -let’s do that. What you have written is simply untrue. Let’s set the record straight.
            Not everything I contributed to Catallaxy was a contrary view to upset the usual suspects. Read the comments – http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/04/25/guest-post-bob-whitaker-reflections-on-the-fall/

        • Numbers is yet another dickhead who thinks freedom of speech means he has a right to inflict his idiocy on others.

          You got sent packing tail between your legs because you are a troll and not even a good one, good trolls at least vary the routine – you always wind up back at whining about being conscripted and blaming conservatives for your failures.

  • Too true Kev, a visit to his site makes me feel good and superior to at least one person. LMAO.

  • FFS, now he is trolling the Bible.
    99% of Westerners would not know Leviticus if he bit them on the arse.
    But 100% of Muslims know what is in the Koran, so what’s your useless point this time.

    • From the comments on the video you posted – If you know any Republicans or Conservatives play this for them, it will warm the cockles of your heart.
      Amen…………..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *