The media coverage of the recent Muslim acts of war, which is what beheading is, gives me hope that Democrats and their wealthy supporters might finally be listening. Observations by retired Major General Bob Scales is good place for them to start listening and learning:
I originally thought that America had to identify an enemy country before it could be destroyed. Based on the things General Scales pointed out I can see that governments supporting terrorists are actually supporting Muslim armies; hence, America is already at war against those countries.
My long-held strategy for defeating Islam must be applied to Muslim countries who hide their military involvement behind their religion. Because Muslims started, and continue to fight, a non-traditional war they must be defeated by a non-traditional counterattack. Iran and Saudi Arabia are two leading candidates for an all-out counterattack.
First and foremost, forget about an occupying force. Muslims count on using the same tactics against an occupying army they employ when they bring their war to foreign lands. It is called terrorism (some still call it a criminal act) when it is actually a well-tested battle strategy for intimidating the helpless. Muslims have been using the same strategy for centuries. The only thing relatively new in this war is that they adapted their strategy for use against an occupying military force they cannot intimidate.
Mutually Assured Destruction
MAD was a half-ass strategy that was bandied about throughout the Cold War. Whether or not MAD was responsible for holding the Soviet Union in check is debatable. In any event MAD will not work in a war that has America playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules while the enemy is playing by its own time-tested rules.
Parenthetically, it is fashionable to say that fighting to win, even fighting back, only succeeds in making Mongo mad:
The popular view of self-defense being sold today is that it only increasing the success of Muslim recruiting efforts. I’d like to know just what in hell does recruit mean? Does it mean Muslims taking up arms to fight for Islam? Does it mean converting non-Muslims to Islam? Whatever it means it is a load of philosophical horse manure.
Speaking candidly, I cannot understand how fighting Muslim brutality as a matter of self-defense creates more recruits than all of those recruits who were created by aid given to Muslim countries; by all of the excuses made to justify Islam’s war; by all of those Muslims immigrating to non-Muslim countries. Hell, a piece of Muslim garbage was even elected to Congress. How many recruits did his election bring in?
Incidentally, how many recruits flocked to the Axis Powers in WWII after their armies were defeated?
Another liberal gem says if you fight the way they fight you become just like them. That is a bigger load than is the recruiting horse shit.
I’m not suggesting beheading captured Muslims, but I am suggesting a way to defeat a Muslim country without becoming just like them.
First destroy everything electrical with EMP (electromagnetic pulse) technology. It better be done to them because as sure as God made little green apples Muslims will do it to their perceived enemies the minute they have the delivery technology.
In addition to EMP, level every mosque, every commercial building, every dam, every bridge, every tunnel, every power plant, every airport, every railroad. When that is done do not sign a peace treaty with people who advocate war until they win. No peace treaty means that every time they rebuild something knock it down again until they curse the reason they started their war.
This next item in the overall strategy ties into getting rid of the anti-America United Nations.
Every country should be notified that accepting refugees from a Muslim country at war with America will be treated as an act of war.
Serendipitously, confining defeated Muslims to their country will take away one of Islam’s most effective weapons of war —— INFILTRATION. Anyone found guilty of collaborating with the enemy could also be sentenced to life in a defeated Muslim country being systematically kept in the dark ages. Nothing could be more just than a lifetime confined in a primitive Muslim country with Muslims.
It goes without saying that Muslims cannot be believed when they say they desire peace; less so when they are losing.
It goes without saying that Muslims cannot be believed when they say they desire peace; less so when they are losing. Aside from Taqiyya and Kitman the record shows that Muslims applaud, and fund, everything their soldiers do in “combat” as they define combat. Never forget how Muslims in every Muslim country cheered in the streets after the attack on 9-11-2001.
Finally, Taqiyya and Kitman served Islam well throughout the centuries before they acquired petroleum wealth. There is not one shred of evidence that shows wealthy Muslims stopped lying for Islam since they got rich. Indeed, petroleum wealth demands the continued use of Taqiyya and Kitman in prosecuting Islam’s war.
From Mao in Korea to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam to Saddam Hussein and now Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Iraq, all act in fundamentally the same predictable manner.
The strategic ambitions of all our enemies have been the same.
ISIS and other terrorists know that Western militaries fight short wars well and long wars poorly. Thus they employ a patient method of fighting that engages only when the odds are in their favor. When it goes badly, they look to any well-meaning international body to interfere long enough to regenerate their forces and return to the fight.
Getting rid of the ill-meaning United Nations is the first step in defeating militarists with global conquest in mind; i.e., Islam and Communism. Islam is the immediate problem:
Seventy years of experience has taught them the folly of fighting using Western ways. Instead, they have adapted a way of war that avoids the killing effects of Western technology and firepower. They "spot" us control of the air, sea and space. They disperse, hide, dig in and go to ground.
They fight with secondhand technology that's good enough. The Chinese and North Vietnamese did most of their killing with mortars and automatic rifles. Hezbollah and Hamas, in various clashes with Israel, have knocked out Israeli tanks with simple handheld anti-tank missiles. Command and control is by cell phone and courier. Americans died by the hundreds in Iraq and Afghanistan from the crude technology of shells and explosives buried along roads and trails.
A worrisome survey of contemporary history reveals that the enemy's strategies and tactics are both consistent and effective—and getting better.
September 15, 2014
ISIS, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and the futility of Obama's strategy
By Thomas Lifson
Blog ISIS Mao Ho Chi Minh and the futility of Obama s strategy
The strategic ambitions of all our enemies have been the same.
XXXXX
ISIS and other terrorists know that Western militaries fight short wars well and long wars poorly. Thus they employ a patient method of fighting that engages only when the odds are in their favor. When it goes badly, they look to any well-meaning international body to interfere long enough to regenerate their forces and return to the fight.
Getting rid of the ill-meaning United Nations is the first step in defeating militarists with global conquest in mind; i.e., Islam and Communism. Islam is the immediate problem:
Seventy years of experience has taught them the folly of fighting using Western ways. Instead, they have adapted a way of war that avoids the killing effects of Western technology and firepower. They "spot" us control of the air, sea and space. They disperse, hide, dig in and go to ground.
XXXXX
They fight with secondhand technology that's good enough. The Chinese and North Vietnamese did most of their killing with mortars and automatic rifles. Hezbollah and Hamas, in various clashes with Israel, have knocked out Israeli tanks with simple handheld anti-tank missiles. Command and control is by cell phone and courier. Americans died by the hundreds in Iraq and Afghanistan from the crude technology of shells and explosives buried along roads and trails.
A worrisome survey of contemporary history reveals that the enemy's strategies and tactics are both consistent and effective—and getting better.
September 15, 2014
ISIS, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and the futility of Obama's strategy
By Thomas Lifson
Blog ISIS Mao Ho Chi Minh and the futility of Obama s strategy
I originally thought that America had to identify an enemy country before it could be destroyed. Based on the things General Scales pointed out I can see that governments supporting terrorists are actually supporting Muslim armies; hence, America is already at war against those countries.
My long-held strategy for defeating Islam must be applied to Muslim countries who hide their military involvement behind their religion. Because Muslims started, and continue to fight, a non-traditional war they must be defeated by a non-traditional counterattack. Iran and Saudi Arabia are two leading candidates for an all-out counterattack.
First and foremost, forget about an occupying force. Muslims count on using the same tactics against an occupying army they employ when they bring their war to foreign lands. It is called terrorism (some still call it a criminal act) when it is actually a well-tested battle strategy for intimidating the helpless. Muslims have been using the same strategy for centuries. The only thing relatively new in this war is that they adapted their strategy for use against an occupying military force they cannot intimidate.
Mutually Assured Destruction
MAD was a half-ass strategy that was bandied about throughout the Cold War. Whether or not MAD was responsible for holding the Soviet Union in check is debatable. In any event MAD will not work in a war that has America playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules while the enemy is playing by its own time-tested rules.
Parenthetically, it is fashionable to say that fighting to win, even fighting back, only succeeds in making Mongo mad:
The popular view of self-defense being sold today is that it only increasing the success of Muslim recruiting efforts. I’d like to know just what in hell does recruit mean? Does it mean Muslims taking up arms to fight for Islam? Does it mean converting non-Muslims to Islam? Whatever it means it is a load of philosophical horse manure.
Speaking candidly, I cannot understand how fighting Muslim brutality as a matter of self-defense creates more recruits than all of those recruits who were created by aid given to Muslim countries; by all of the excuses made to justify Islam’s war; by all of those Muslims immigrating to non-Muslim countries. Hell, a piece of Muslim garbage was even elected to Congress. How many recruits did his election bring in?
Incidentally, how many recruits flocked to the Axis Powers in WWII after their armies were defeated?
Another liberal gem says if you fight the way they fight you become just like them. That is a bigger load than is the recruiting horse shit.
I’m not suggesting beheading captured Muslims, but I am suggesting a way to defeat a Muslim country without becoming just like them.
First destroy everything electrical with EMP (electromagnetic pulse) technology. It better be done to them because as sure as God made little green apples Muslims will do it to their perceived enemies the minute they have the delivery technology.
In addition to EMP, level every mosque, every commercial building, every dam, every bridge, every tunnel, every power plant, every airport, every railroad. When that is done do not sign a peace treaty with people who advocate war until they win. No peace treaty means that every time they rebuild something knock it down again until they curse the reason they started their war.
This next item in the overall strategy ties into getting rid of the anti-America United Nations.
Every country should be notified that accepting refugees from a Muslim country at war with America will be treated as an act of war.
Serendipitously, confining defeated Muslims to their country will take away one of Islam’s most effective weapons of war —— INFILTRATION. Anyone found guilty of collaborating with the enemy could also be sentenced to life in a defeated Muslim country being systematically kept in the dark ages. Nothing could be more just than a lifetime confined in a primitive Muslim country with Muslims.
It goes without saying that Muslims cannot be believed when they say they desire peace; less so when they are losing.
It goes without saying that Muslims cannot be believed when they say they desire peace; less so when they are losing. Aside from Taqiyya and Kitman the record shows that Muslims applaud, and fund, everything their soldiers do in “combat” as they define combat. Never forget how Muslims in every Muslim country cheered in the streets after the attack on 9-11-2001.
Finally, Taqiyya and Kitman served Islam well throughout the centuries before they acquired petroleum wealth. There is not one shred of evidence that shows wealthy Muslims stopped lying for Islam since they got rich. Indeed, petroleum wealth demands the continued use of Taqiyya and Kitman in prosecuting Islam’s war.
