Petraeus Gives Mandate to Win

Pages: 1 2

American troops will no longer have to fight the Taliban with one hand tied behind their back.

On the orders of General Petraeus, coalition troops now have the authority to “pursue the enemy relentlessly.” That means, among other things, that the rules restricting air strikes and artillery strikes will be relaxed to allow NATO forces to fire on terrorist targets in abandoned or dilapidated buildings. The new order sees Petraeus put his first stamp on Afghan war policy since replacing General McChrystal, and it signals his clear belief that coalition forces could win this war only if they are allowed to fight back against an enemy that strikes without warning and hides behind civilians.

For Petraeus, this is all a difficult task. The NATO forces in Afghanistan are there at the behest of the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai. Karzai has proven a difficult ally, corrupt and of questionable loyalty, but in the morass of Afghan politics, mired in tribal and religious intrigue, Karzai is, for better or worse, the West’s man in Kabul. And his already difficult job is made more difficult by the occasional, tragic losses of innocent life at the hands of errant Allied bombs and artillery shells. And yet, if our soldiers in Afghanistan cannot fire their heaviest, most effective weapons, the already difficult task of defeating the Taliban insurgency on the field of battle becomes outright impossible. In a vicious counter-insurgency war against Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants, it is the West’s technological advantages that help us keep pace with a low-tech, but brutal, enemy.

General Stanley McChrystal, recently fired for his intemperate comments to Rolling Stone Magazine, had tackled this problem directly, imposing stringent Rules of Engagement on the forces under his command. Artillery strikes and bombing runs by aircraft were strictly regulated, limited to very specific tactical scenarios where the troops on the ground calling down the heavy firepower could confirm that only hostile insurgents would be in the line of fire.

And the policy seemed to pay some dividends. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research has suggested that the reduction of accidental civilian deaths in Afghanistan translated directly into a reduction of violence directed against the NATO forces. The NBER report calls it the “revenge effect,” through which the accidental killing of civilians can be expected to quickly produce retaliatory strikes against NATO troops or Western interests. (Interestingly, the report notes that the same was not true in Iraq — civilian collateral damage did not lead to any noticeable increase in the number of attacks against Coalition forces in that country.) As General McChrystal’s Rules of Engagement began to reduce the number of civilian casualties, the number of attacks directed against his troops declined.

While that is a good thing in and of itself, one cannot win a war by avoiding contact with the enemy, particularly in a country such as Afghanistan, where the insurgent forces are largely composed by locals and the Allied forces come from across the world and continue to serve there only at the pleasure of impatient electorates. NATO’s resolve is already wavering. The Netherlands have withdrawn their troop contingent, and the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar province will soon be replaced by some yet-to-to-determined non-combat mission. President Obama himself has pushed for a firm withdrawal date, though recent events seem to rendered irrelevant the originally stated American withdrawal date of July 2011, with speculation now suggesting that there will be a small withdrawal of troops so as to comply with the President’s election promises without fully ending the war.

Pages: 1 2

  • Mike

    I don't ever hear of these so called " innocent civilians" protesting " the Taliban's mass murdering atrocities. It's time to fully load B52s with napalm and keep carpetbombing the Taliban until there is no Taliban left. Victory is more important than pandering to the Taliban's supporters and appeasers. We didn't win World Wars one and two by worrying about how many of the enemy's civillians were killed.

    • k9base

      The USA doesnot have napalm anymore -Clinton turned it into gasoline in the 90s.

  • William Wattsitworth

    "In a vicious counter-insurgency war against Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants, it is the West’s technological advantages that help us keep pace with a low-tech, but brutal, enemy."

    How wrong. Or at best, how incomplete is this analysis. Counter*insurgency* is about securing the population, not merely laser bombing Taliban hideouts. Bobbitt and Kilcullen make this perfectly clear. The war must involve a crushing of Talibani resolve as well as dividing and ruling the elite, ideologically-driven, from the foot troops, who are led more by economic opportunism and other factors. This doesn't mean having to bring democracy to the country but it does mean dealing with an *insurgency* and thus undermining the conditions for joining the insurgency is key. Yes, high-tech can help the fight but there is more to the "war" than its military aspect, whether you like that or not. That's the nature of this kind of conflict.

    Robert, I 'm sorry to agree with you but your Islam fury blinds you to the rather more complex reality. Islam is not a black box that by itself infects some and not others … Mike, yes, to Hell with civilian life! Why not just nuke the entire country? Really, we fight for what we believe in by the rules and values we fight for. Avoiding civilian deaths as far as possible is what any liberal, democratic country ought to be doing, though of course this is a messy, imperfect conflict. Some will be killed, but we cannot just simply "carpet bomb" the Taliban since they don't just nicely line up for us to do such a thing.

    • SHmuelHaLevi

      Nice that some folk only write notes and does not have to go into fox holes.
      I am a former soldier decorated in action with the israeli military and also a former Senior-Fellow Engineer US DoD Military Avionics Programs.
      War is not for intellectuals, soldiers fight and die and regretfully also civilians.
      In particular since civilians either volunteer or are drafted to serve as shields.
      We could go into long listings of War attacks that defined the wars such as those by the V-2's, Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc, etc. Civilian populations is from where soldiers come from.
      I will not go into details but over 70% of the military weapons systems, from the C-130 Combat Talon to the F-22 general ordnance are not selective.
      A Vulcan ultra rapid fire machine gun is specially not made to caress the enemy just in case civilians are around.
      The B-52 on which I had part on a small portion of its upgrades is eminently a expansive delivery plataform. Carpet bombing in short. Not originally designed to gnat's ass hitting type of bombing. There are very expensive newfangled bombs with much more accuracy but not enough of them.
      War is hell and that is that.

  • AntiOnan

    While it is a Sharia law country and as it will remain one indefinitely, IMHO it is a waste of western life for as soon as the allied troops leave it will be all back to normal with the Taliban sneaking back in with the cooperation of 30% of the population at least.

    While those who try to pacify Islam or modify the Koran from within will go the way that all others who have tried before: dead , ostracized or both.

    I have no solution. It is a little like a naughty child. If it wont change then you have to make it change & until the idiots we term "leaders" realize that Islam is the problem not Muslims we are simply wasting lives and money, but, of course, there IS all that Lithium.

    To change Islam requires the reining in & the control of ALL madrassa's the same to all Imam's and mosques. But the west has neither the intelligence, the will or evew=n the courage to do what is necessary.

    It is a little like WW2: we can thank our lucky stars that Hitler invaded the USSR as Stalin did not care how much money or how many lives it cost so long as there were results.
    Without him Germany would NOT have been defeated. If i sound like I am a fan of dear Josef I am not as he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, But it is interesting to note that there was no Islamic problem in the USSR while he was there., Draconian opposition requires draconian measures. Can you see it happening now? No

    Perhaps when the firsts nuke(s) explode we might see some will, but it may well be too late for many countries by then.

    • Ageofreason

      I fear that you are correct. Ideas drive behaviour. Ideas are the cause of all that men do. Until and unless Afghanistan rejects Islam which is the real cause of the brutality and lawlessness there, the Allies can only keep the stability in a holding pattern at best. What of nearby Pakistan which exports radical Islam to Afghanistan? Will that country have to be pacified as well? If it's not, then radicalism will return in the absense of the Allies to keep the lid onIslamism. Saudi Arabia's export of wahabbism will always be a problem, and likewise will Iran. War must include ideological warfare as well as bombs and bullets. What effort is being made to make the Afghans aware that civilian casualties are the major responsibility of the Taliban, that the Allies have no desire to harm civilians, but are hamstrung by an enemy that cares nothing for civilians. What has Karzai said about this? He needs to say it again and again.The fundamental truth is, however, that the criminal conspiracy known as Islam is the root cause of the troubles in Afghanistan. You either tell the muzzies this, and blast them into submission or atoms, or…..what? I have no answers either, but Afghanistan is only one battle in the larger war. The Middle East is fueled by American and European oil money. Without it, the "brave" Muslims of the Middle East would be picking up camel dung to burn to keep warm at night, and would have no wealth or energy to export their Sharia and their terror. The west, even as it is being weakened by a radical US administration, and Socialist policies, refuses to face the scope of the war it faces as the enemies lurk and grow stronger in the shadows.

      • Ageofreason

        The fundamental truth is, however, that the criminal conspiracy known as Islam is the root cause of the troubles in Afghanistan. You either tell the muzzies this, and blast them into submission or atoms, or…..what? I have no answers either, but Afghanistan is only one battle in the larger war. The Middle East is fueled by American and European oil money. Without it, the "brave" Muslims of the Middle East would be picking up camel dung to burn to keep warm at night, and would have no wealth or energy to export their Sharia and their terror. The west, even as it is being weakened by a radical US administration, and Socialist policies, refuses to face the scope of the war it faces as the enemies lurk and grow stronger in the shadows.

  • JasonPappas

    NBER? Citing the National Bureau of Economic Research on military tactics? C'mon.

    NBER has found a "local minimum" where small increases of force increases our casualties–especially in the short run. However, large increases will have to opposite effect … it will demoralize all resistance or eliminate it completely.

    We keep finding ways to fight the enemy on their terms … hand-to-hand combat. They glory in hand-to-hand combat. Crush the enemy and their families from the sky and the fight will lose all its meaning for this kind of enemy. Scorched earth … it's the only way to fight savages.

  • logdon

    In 1944 during the Normandy Invasion 450 French civilians died in the town of St Lo.

    The place was decimated by US bombers in a succesful attempt to break out of the Fallaise Gap which was impeding our advancing forces.

    War is hell, a saying proved by this decision.

    Did the French suddenly form resistance armies against Americans and British troops? Did they hide behind civilians and threaten other French people?

    The answer is no. Sad and agonising as it undoubtedly was, they realised that a greater good was on its way and that this unforseen event was an accidental part of a huge effort to remove a greater scourge, that of the Nazis.

    In other words they were still capable of logic and understanding.

    Try that with Afghanis and see how far you get. Primitive, tribal, illiterate, uneducated and with zero empathy as to our objectives, they are the least trustful people on the planet.

    We have never won a war based on half assed logic. Either we are fighting or we are not.

    We carpet bombed Germany to rubble. And we won.

    Wondering what civilians will think when you're fighting is a recipe doomed to failure.

    Hopefully we'll be able to extract ourselves from this futility called modern warfare pretty sharpish.

    Bin Laden famously said that people will always follow the strong horse. We are that steed. Unfortunately we seem to think that cutting off three of its legs will have no effect.

    Anyone seen a one legged horse race?

  • AntiOnan

    Bombing Germany had negligible effect upon production which increased until 1945. It had no demoralizing effect either. The only thing that it did do was to draw off 88mm flak and Luftwaffe fighters from the real theatre: the eastern front.
    Much of Germany's flak defences were manned by Hitler Jugend and even Deutsches Jungvolk so it had even less effect upon manpower.

    The ONLY really 100% effective allied air power was tactical support once France was invaded. Even the Schweinfurt ball bearing factories were back in production within one week of the raids.

    • Jason

      This is exactly correct. Time after time, from WW1 to the present, massive, indiscriminate bombing has done nothing to significantly diminish morale. The reason we've developed all those smart bombs isn't that it's "mean" to bomb civilians, it's that it's wasteful of money and ordnance and *POINTLESS*.

      In a country like Afghanistan, which has zero industrial base, and an already-demoralized, subjugated population, such a strategy would be stupid. You can't bomb someone back to the Middle Ages when *they're already there.*

      It's also stupid to compare WW2 w/ Afghanistan – in WW2 there were identifiable, organized aggressors, and you could set intelligible war aims. You know – kick the Axis armies out of occupied territory, invade Germany/Japan, knock off the idiots in charge. Easy to understand and feasible (albeit at huge cost). (cont'd)

      • Jason

        Here we're fighting a religious and cultural ideology as much as anything. How do you defeat that? Where are our enemy's armies, his bases, his war production?

        How do you define victory – what's a realistic scenario? Bombing as advocated by some here is just murder and will accomplish nothing, except perhaps give the jihadis fresh recruitment material. Savagery didn't work for the scruple-free Soviets – what makes you think it'd work for us?

        The answer of course is that there is no realistic way to achieve victory. Time to arm Karzai's guys to the teeth, declare victory, and GTFO.

      • AntiOnan

        "tupid to compare WW2 w/ Afghanistan"

        agreed..but all my solutions are deemed "politically incorrect" or "politically embarrassing".

        Do you know what?

        I don't care about upsetting the African mafia (OAU) the oil mafia OPEC or the overnumerous lefties & radicals.'(socially I am still left)

        Give me the reins and I would stop the Islamic chariot permanently.
        But after 18 death threats from Islamic websites over 8 yrs I wouldn't last one week in power

        Everyone knows that they are violent but no one DOES anything.

        I am rejoining our local pistol club at 66 yrs of age. and I still point shoot very well.
        I could handle the personal death threats but when they included my family I changed my mind.

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        And doing nothing does, I guess. If bombing doesn't diminish morale, it at least leaves fewer of them to fight.

    • JasonPappas

      Germany was very different from Japan. Japan was driven by a warrior ideology that saw death in battle as honorable … more honorable than surrender. Bombing Japan meant that they would not die in battle facing the enemy. It took all the meaning out of the fight.

      The German people would have accepted a surrender but they were duty-bound to support their leaders. This is a very different case.

      Jihadi are more like the Japanese than the Germans. They want to die in hand-to-hand combat. They glory in the battle. These people have to be crushed from the sky. Several reports have given a clear picture. They don't want to be crushed by bombs from the void but to be shot as they pump bullets into our troops.

      Civilians are a different matter. If you leave they'll be glad. Just get it done quickly and leave.

      • AntiOnan

        I dont disagree totally but NEVER call suicide bombers "kamikazes". The atheistic Nazis and Communists died for their cause , right or wrong and like the Japanese with no heavenly reward so their courage is without doubt .

        But the Islamic m*ggots who use suicide vests expect a reward in heaven for killing infidels. As a confirmed agnostic it s a bit of a risk IMO*understatement)

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        Its the so-called 'civilians' who inflict losses on our troops.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      So I suppose we shouldn't have bombed Germany then. Had that not happened you would today be speaking German or Japanese. Bombing Germany DID help us to win the war. How much higer would production have been had we not sent our bombers over the Ruhr? You are a pathetic fruiit and nut case.

      • AntiOnan

        I wont bother insulting you as yr ignorance knows no better. I can quote sources but this is always pointless in cases like this

        Pull your head out of yr USA biased view of the world and realise that the USSR beat Germany not the allies.We helped them sure but their BLOOD won it.

        As for the bombing of Japan, yes it had a tremendous effect BUT the whole Japanese population was determined to fight to the end for every bit of land, men , women and children., despite the bombing. The casualties at Okinawa & Iwo Jima really worried the allies an they expected at least 1 million to take Japan but fortunately we had the nukes to end it. quickly. If you think that bombing without nukes was going to beat Japan go read some histories: I can provide a list.

        I am quite happy to bomb every house in Pakistan & Afghanistan but I do not believe that it will win the war as it has to be won on the ground and it has to be won ideologically by at the very least, recognising the cause:Islam. As Afghanisat6n is an Islamic state already how can we do that?

        All wars are won in the end by the man on the ground: unless you use nukes which is quite pointless if the other side also have them..

        Why do I bother? No wonder our politicians are all so stupid!!

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          Oh dear. Another self-hating troll pollutes these boards. Although production did increase in Germany between 1942-44 despite bombing, production would have been higher still had no bombs been dropped. Factories would have remained intact with their entire workforce. Bombing raids decimated factories and their workforces, and through doing so saved the lives of Allied troops through that extra production on top of the increase being denied to them. But victory is a dirty word for you. You hate the thought iof us defeating the taliban, just as you would have hated the thought of the US winning in Vietnam and even World Wars I and II. That is the gist of your insults. And we know that Germany was described as having a cannon and cosmetics economy up until Stalingrad by Albert Speer, and it was after Stalingrad that German industry stopped making 'cosmetics' and concentrated on cannon alone, hence the step up in productivity and the switch to a 'total war' economy long after the UK had concentrated on guns alone.

          • AntiOnan

            I was going to reply in detail but i cannot be bothered as you have missed the point totally. Go read a few histories of the eastern front ( I can provide over 100 references if you are desperate) then come back and tell me that the US beat Germany in WW2.

            My comment below to Frederick whose polite note received a polite reply, applies as much to you as he. To win there we have to be prepared to kill many/most of them & to accept the necessary ground casualties and we are ARE NOT, and IMHO not ONE MILLION Afghanis is worth the life of ONE western soldier. Sure I would nuke it from top to bottom but that would only start open season on the west. So we get out and let them starve & kill each other and we do NOT subsidize any Muslim country at all. But who has the will to do that? No one! It is a waste of our time, our money & our lives.
            Our problems lie in the scum we are allowing into our respective countries as that is where the damage will be most felt but what do we do? We squabble like kids and i am as much to blame as anyone.
            We have an election here and they tell us what the main worries are.
            What rubbish!! I talk to people all day and our worries are ONE) ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION; TWO) MUSLIMS and for ONE see TWO. But not ONE of our gutless PC sucking politicians is brave enough to be honest. We are as doomed as are you

    • Frederick

      Dear AntiOnan, although the focus of this discussion is not the bombing of Germany I feel compelled to comment on your statement. Yes production did increase but that statistic is misleading because Germany was not on a full emergency wartime economic footing in '42 or '43 but was still ramping up in '44. The bombing campaign against their energy production and transportation was devastating. Although the effect of 'moral' is difficult to quantify against production levels it is just common sense that to arise in the morning, prepare breakfast, fix a lunch to take along and proceed to a 12 hour shift in a factory is naturally made a much more difficult prospect when firebombs are raining down on you day and night. Tactical air strikes were extremely effective but hardly the ONLY effective use of air power in the European theater. Finally we would have defeated Germany without The Eastern front, it just would have been at a much much higher cost!

      • AntiOnan

        I agree with what you say, and I do, but you all miss the point, for which I guess i am to blame. The allies,US included did NOT have the will to accept the necessary ground casualties to win the war vs Germany. The reason as to why the US lost in Vietnam(and if I ever find the persons who threw blood at our troops he will be very sorry) was that it did not win on the ground. You cannot win a war alone by air power and technology. Sure you can kill a lot of soft target but not the important hard ones.
        This applies to Afghanistan.I was just talking to a returning soldier from our forces there and he is convinced(as are most of his mates) that it is the same smiling "nice" Afghanis who talk to them who plant the IED's. In other words the people there hate US(all of us) more than they do the Taliban and as we are infidels what did you expect? The only way we can win is by killing them all and that requires ground troops without ethics who are prepared to accept the necessary casualties and only the USSR/Nazi Germany has had these.Democracies are well known for not having ghe will to accept the necessary casualties. That was my point

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In essence in Afghanistan we are propping up what is a corrupt Sharia state that thanks to our beyond incompetent State Department we helped to create. Indeed, even while we are propping up Afghanistan’s corrupt Sharia state its judiciary prosecutes people who attempt to apostatize from Islam.

    The best thing we can do over there is get out and let the jihad that was already taking place over there before our presence resume. If we do anything lets arm the Karzai faction just enough to ensure that the resumed jihad last as long as possible, because Muslims slaughtering each other inside the Dar al Islam weakens the Dar al Islam and anything that weakens the Dar al Islam is good for us unbelievers.

    In any event, the last thing we should be doing over there is nation building because nation building only strengthens the Dar al Islam, and is therefore exceedingly counterproductive to us unbelievers.

    We must always remember the nature of the global jihad is that it is permanent. Thus anything we can do to weaken the Dar al Islam in the long run only helps our cause.

  • RJofNM

    Let me see…had we gone into Afghanistan to kill Osama, the Mullah, along with every Taliban and Al Quaeda person we could find or get near enough to kill, then left the country…

    Instead of teaching many a lesson never to try that stunt of attacking America again, this war has evolved into making our soldiers "peace corps" twins and draining our wallets for people who use their left hands for wiping themselves.

    Yea, I want that mosque really close to where a couple of towers used to stand in New York City. I just seem to recall those early Greek wars where the victors would erect a "trophy" on the battle scene for their victory.

  • AntiOnan

    thank you..I wont bother posting here anymore if the truth is censored

  • James Johnson

    AntiOnan, Not sure what they deleted but you are spot on. Cannot fight a war against an ideal and political way of life while denying it exists. There is no honor among the officer corps any more. There has been what, 1 resignation by a Major to protest the murder of our soldiers at bho's hand/command?? Corrupt officers only breed future failure and these are quite corrupt. Now before all of you whiny WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets demand my head without caring for truth, and I hear you every day at the VA, where is the honor. Generals kneel at the satanic majesty of bho and murder our troops by not allowing them protection and having ROE's that demand death before retaliation. Elections have consequences and now we pay dearly by murdering our own children and grandchildren while bho destroys the economy while making his millionaire friends into billionaires. Imagine if all of those crying and threatening vets had voted for what is best for the country they leave behind instead of what someone promised to take from others so he could "give" to them as a huge loving benefactor.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      You're right. Churchill never praised Nazism, either before or during World War II. He attacked that ideal at every opportunity, and just like Nazism, Islam has to be attacked at every opportunity. Military action alone isn't enough – there is an economic and verbakl war out there to be won. And Bush describing Islam as a religion of peace whilst the Ground Zero site was still smouldering showed our moral and intellectual bankruptcy. The way to go forwards is to study Winston Churchill and those immortal passages from the original blue moon editions of The River War and The Malakand Field Force, both written by Churchill whilst still in his early twenties. He learned about Islam the hard way on the battlefield and in the white hot atmosphere of the Northwest Frontier, rather than in the university, which certainly wasn't a politically correct place during the 1890s. And slandering those who criticise Islam as bigots and racists is a surefire way of losing the verbal war.

  • Bill Robertson Jr

    What a joke. Obama really giving the military full permission to win against Muslims?? Get real. Dead infidels are what our president desires. This headline will soon pass and the rescinding/change won't even be mentioned next week and the dead Americans will not even be thought of. And do you know the important thing, as JJ above mentioned, NOT ONE OFFICER will resign in protest, and Barney Frank & Chris Dodd will still be writing the legislation that will save the monetary system of the US. No comedian could think this up.

  • USMCSniper

    Buraq Obama and Hillary Clinton (who both called General Petreaus as liar about the Iraqi surge which proved him right) gives overtures to negotiate with Iran who supplies and trains al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, announces a withdawal date of next year, allows Aghanistan supporters of America names to be publish by WikiLeaks, publically scorns the AFgham government, and expects General Petreaus to win the war?

  • dancingczars

    Let's use the same rules of engagement as the Taliban. Tying our military's hands for any reason that puts them at additional risk is trying to fight a politically correct war by and administration that loathes the Military.

    Isn't it about time that we refrain from calling Islam a religion but call it what it is, a cult. Be clear, Jihadists have not hijacked Islam, Islam has hijacked Muslims. They are born and trapped by the 7th Century rantings of a Modern Day Jim Jones.

    Sharia must be crushed. Come visit my site at


    The U.S. is fighting to erase the people who bombed the twin towers. If that means dropping atomic bombs on all of Afganistan to help them decide to quit, then so be it.
    It seemed to influence the Japs to stop their stupid war in 1945.

  • hopetotellyou

    After years and yeas, it is about time that we were allowed to fight to win.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      And also allowed Israel to fight to win as well, rather than resorting to the usual barrage of antisemitism whenever the Israelis act in self-defense.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Our greatest problem is that we have no real men in the government administration,
    just wastes who prance around pontificating nonsense. Our own government is
    the greatest obstacle our military has, November we can change that, if not our
    miliitary should come home and take over here, arrest the traitors and send them
    to Allah in burning prayer rugs, dropped from 60,000ft…………………………..
    President Petraeus sounds good to me…………………………….William

    • Jason

      So…can I put you down for a military dictatorship installed via coup d'etat, then? Certainly reads like you're advocating violent overthrow of the government.

      • AntiOnan

        During wartime and I mean TOTAL war not hobby wars like Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan, in most democratic countries there is virtually a military dictatorship and parliaments have very little role in decision making.

        So, your point?

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I would be willing to wait for and election but it seems that our best people are
    better off here fighting for our freedoms which disappear daily with leftist subversion.
    And elected government made up of military men who understand upholding the
    Constitution and clamping down on traitors seems like a good way to go to me.
    Violent overthrow in unnecessary, if it happened, well Oh my! whoda thunk dat!
    I would be so shocked……………………………………………………….William

  • AntiOnan

    pathetic..I suppose that you agree with her?

    No wonder we are bloody well losing, they have even control of this site

    Allahu Akbar!!… better learn to speak Arabic

  • AntiOnan

    b*tch test

  • AntiOnan

    Admin …WHAT word would you have used? genteel arab lady? pondscum? c*nt?

    DO ANSWER!!!!!

  • AntiOnan

    Sorry about the typing but i was just so angry

  • Lorenzo Bouchard

    The 1400 year long War with Islam will not be won till we are ready to obliterate the Hadj, and can build a Christian Church, a Synagogue and Buddhist Temple in Mecca.

  • AntiOnan

    It wont be won until some idiots whom we term "leaders" realise that the 1400 year old war with Islam is back into top gear & that it is NOT the obvious violent elements who are the main danger but the group termed "immigrants" who are simply the early cadres of the future "Sixth Columns" aimed at the heart ofall western cultures..

    My pessimistic view is that it may take one or more nukes in western cities to wake up these idiots but I have my doubts that even bin Laden is not that stupid as it would provoke a realisation and a reaction and just now there are not yet enough in the west to fulfill their longterm aim: Dar al Islam. So it may take a while or until there are enough Muslim voters in all western countries to swing the elections there.
    5% is apparently the number required for Jihad II, while >15&% for Jihad III so you can estimate easily now just how many countries are already in deep effluent.

  • AntiOnan

    If you want to see some truth :watch yr TV for the bleeding heart pictures of the floods in Pakistan, and the expected demands for aid from the west. Then realize that probably NONE of the ME oil rich countries will give a cent as they don 't care. Now it is nice to be the "good Samaritan" but when the recipient already hates you and laughs at the stupidity of yr kindness, it is all rather pointless helping these ignorant, arrogant despicable fools.

    BMWs made of SILVER(not coated but the metal) & have a look at how much these nice arabs give famine relief & disaster releif. Aceh province? west 8 billion $ ME oil rich states 45 million I kid you not. They WONT even help their fellow Muslims. That si what we are fighting: untermenschen in fact.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Of course they're not grateful for infidel aid. They're conditioned by their Islamic teachings into thinking that infidel aid doesn't come out of our goodness, but that Allah willed it instead. Allah is who they thank. They believe they've got a right to extract aid from the infidel because in their tiny minds, the infidel is an inferior creature. Their prophet Mohammed stole from infidels, so they believe what the infidel has is theirs by rights. Thats why they're ungrateful for our aid, so no chance of 'winning hearts and minds' – one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard, and why I almost feel like putting the television through when anyone babbles 'hearts and minds' nonsense. On top of that, they think they should only help fellow Muslims, meaning that if the boot was on the other foot, we'd get nothing from them. That is why I don't give aid to Muslims, after all why should I give to those who would see me and mine murdered or enslaved without batting an eyelid, and worse still, celebrated in the mosque and in the dusty Arab street or any Muslim street, just like 9/11 was.

  • WFB

    I repeat, we are not fighting a WAR we are NATION BUILDING which is a politically correct activity requiring our troops to commit suicide to insure that no indigineous civilians are killed.

  • hikerdude

    Bravo , Robert for your succinct synopsis of "The Religion of Hate." You should sent it to our resident Muslim in D.C.
    American Christian infidel
    Michael Canzano