Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tell It Right

Neither of those countries really have much of a central leadership, as I understand it. Their central government is really just the dominant tribe. Out in the hinterlands, the local people and tribes go their own way.

In that context, getting them to “surrender” doesn’t really mean too much, at least as I understand the situation.


15 posted on 09/11/2019 10:27:06 AM PDT by Steely Tom ([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Steely Tom
"Neither of those countries really have much of a central leadership, as I understand it....In that context, getting them to 'surrender' doesn’t really mean too much, at least as I understand the situation."

I 100% understand what you're saying. And I also understand that what I propose is genuinely brutal.

But four things need to be understood:

1) The context of fighting back like I propose is all about making sure whoever was in charge of the 9/11 attacks learns that they made a mistake. Even if some of the leaders never die from our actions (i.e. Japan's emperor and most of Japan's PM's survived WW2), they will at least look at the devastation and realize that life for them after attacking us is worse than life before attacking us.

2) This is also for anybody else paying attention, particular neighboring nations of the same slay-the-infidel mindset. I propose that we'd be safer from attacks by other nations if one or two nations had been made an example of in year 2002.

3) We can never, ever, ever give our nation's enemies an out on attacking us. Them organizing themselves in shadowy groups shouldn't make us say, "Well, Bob. Since our attackers didn't wear military uniforms, didn't use military weapons, or come from a defined nation that declared war on us...we just can't fight back." No, Bob. The particular reasons I just listed are why the Geneva Conventions gloves should have come off. It's because our attackers attacked us without using warfare under Geneva Convention means that we should have unleashed ourselves from the Geneva Conventions and fought war to win. But wait, most people in Afghanistan didn't attack the U.S. Well, Bob, nobody in NYC attacked Al Qaeda, yet three thousand people were killed.

4) Us going to war in Afghanistan united the factions (as many said would happen). In their unity they could have chosen to surrender, yet they didn't. I propose to you that the reason they didn't find it in them to unify enough to surrender is because too many of them are still alive. I promise you they would have surrendered if we had made it the life or death situation we could have.

19 posted on 09/11/2019 11:40:50 AM PDT by Tell It Right (1st Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson