Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Now this is where we run into problems. Who is 'they'? If you mean terrorists, then that's what we're doing now. Once we identify them as terrorists and locate their position, we bomb them. However, I got the impression from the video that by 'they' she meant not terrorists, but Muslims. This would include practically every Afghan.
You can take her as broadly as you want, I didn't get the same message.
So do we simply nuke Afghanistan? Much more efficient, don't you think?
Also, she made it clear in the video that she was talking about their society and made it clear that this society involves many countries. She's clearly talking about Muslim society,and as such she's essentially referring to a declaration of war with about one billion people living in practically every country on earth.
That's your perception. I took her commentary to mean Afghanistan and Iraq. Although she uses sweeping generalizations, I think she was specifically referring to those two countries, and/or any country that would harbour terrorist groups.
She's comparing it to Japan and Germany, yet it's like apples and blue whales. Even she acknowledges the difference by stating that it would involve more countries, but so be it.
Yes, and I acknowledge the differences as well. But the tactic is still very much viable, and here's why.
In WWII (LWF), we bombed their society, thus breaking their collective will to defend their homeland. This couldn't be more then in the case of mainland Japan. Where the people were willing to die for a God like Emperor. The two atomic bombs effectively annihilated their collective will and for the most part, their ability to strategically defend themselves from invasion.
As for Germany and much of occupied Europe. It's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of countries occupied by the Nazi's were not sympathetic to their regime. But it may surprise you to know that not every country they marched into, held them in such low regards. For example, the north of Holland, also known as Friesland, absolutely embraced the Nazi's. Their daily press condemned the imperialist forces and proclaimed Nazism as if it were divine.
But I digress...
Like you indicated, radical Islam is not the all encompassing belief of all Muslims. Very much like Nazism was not embraced by every nation Hitlers Troops crushed into submission.
In that regard, they share a close similarity. And is so doing, they can be defeated in much the same way. With the same tactics achieving very much the same result.
Whereas we bombed civilian populations in Europe and the Pacific, to not only slow the enemies war machine. We also slowly whittled away the collective resistance and urge to fight from the general populace. And in many circumstances, caused them to turn on those they eventually came to understand, brought this hardship upon.
This is where we will win this war, if we prescribe to the same tactic. We bomb away there collective will, we bomb them until they turn on those that are actually the cause of their plight.
This isn't without it's inherent risks, there is always the possibility of blowback. Which is what we have seen outside the Middle East in the recent past.
But this too will dwindle with military pressure.
Does she really understand that she's proposing an all out world war? Scarily enough, I think she does.
I still think you misunderstand.