4 ms·

There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevi

There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevitably lose. They can hold out for a long time with their low tech, but they still take losses at a 50:1 ratio. You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech? You can't win as a collective which means you can't win. Unless you can deploy an army that will actually DEFEAT the opposing army you are talking about Hamas-style resistance. The Palestinians are not winning. They are conquered. It's already over. They are bad people to take advice from.

jeromec 17y ago
I totally disagree; your analysis is flawed. The reason movements like Al Qaeda will lose is because their ideology doesn't have the right support. When you try to sidestep the right to freedom this country was founded upon you are picking a fight that extends into the core of the people, including the intellectuals that made all that high tech weaponry possible. Also, our all-volunteer military is made up of our people - our brothers, cousins, sisters etc.
- forensic 17y ago
  The intellectuals are pacified by their McMansions and $150,000 student debt. Your brothers, cousins, and sisters don't understand what is wrong with censoring the internet. They think it's a good thing because they're afraid of pedophiles. The whole point (as I explained) of modern non-lethal weaponry is that it can be used to enforce bad laws without causing a public uprising. Brothers, cousins, sisters, etc think waterboarding is okay because they watch too much 24. They think anyone who flees in pain due to LRAD is a pussy cause it's just like loud music.
  - jeromec 17y ago
    You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country? And our family and friends which make up the military wouldn't know which side to stand on? I'm not talking about censoring some silly media, I'm talking about if it came down to the difference between liberty and tyranny, of infringing assembly and free speech.
    - forensic 17y ago
      >You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country? WTF has been going on for the last 40 years? There has been an accelerating decline in liberty since about 1970. Your sisters, cousins, etc have proven themselves to be easily manipulated idiots. Intellectuals have proven themselves to be spineless lovers of comfort who will complain but never put anything tangible on the line.
      - jeromec 17y ago
        I meant if a line was crossed. I don't think we've crossed any line. We've come close, but the people still hold power.
    - lsc 17y ago
      pretty much. Do you really think we'd take our cheeto-stained hands off the keyboard and start shooting at people? I know I'm not ready to get shot for some abstract idea. Sure, I'd maybe spend some time and/or money, but I don't think anyone but the crazies would start shooting. Besides, I think that shooting back is rarely effective in modern warfare; it's all about 'hearts and minds' these days, not about who can kill more of the other dudes.
      - roc 17y ago
        Iran seems to be demonstrating the limit of what's achievable by winning 'hearts and minds' alone.
        lsc 17y ago
        It's pretty difficult to invade another country and win any 'hearts and minds' - I mean, no matter how shitty the previous government was, you are a foreign invader. I think Iran (and Iran's success against the USSR) is a prime example of how 'hearts and minds' is much more important than guns and bombs in modern warfare.
scythe 17y ago
>There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevitably lose. Isn't that what they said about the Viet Cong?
- Maktab 17y ago
  Who eventually did lose to an extent. By the '70s the war had moved into a more conventional phase with the NVA doing the majority of the fighting. When Saigon fell it was not to VC guerillas but NVA tanks.
- forensic 17y ago
  Have you seen vietnam? They definitely didn't win anything from that war. It sure is a hollow victory if your entire country and way of life is destroyed and all your descendants are horribly mutated, etc. If winning means getting what Vietnam got, I'll take surrender and slavery.
  - jeromec 17y ago
    What happened to land of the free, home of the brave? Are you sure you're American?
    - ramchip 17y ago
      Why would he be? I don't mean to troll, and perhaps I missed the tongue-in-cheek element, but this kind of corny quote means nothing. Canada did not fight a war for the "land of the free" and is doing quite fine in its slavery to the British crown, thank you.
kls 17y ago
>You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech? You don't need any of this, In guerrilla warfare mechanized infantry (tanks) are really only good for expensive body armor and neither side could use nukes if they had them (you would just be bombing yourself). Utilizing either would cause to many civilian casualties and the nasty part of guerrilla warfare is that for each 1 killed their are 50 recruits that have seen family and friends die (hardcore). Once this happens you have one of three choices surrender, withdraw or genocide.
- forensic 17y ago
  I feel like we're going in circles. 1. You can't win through pacifism because of modern anti-protestor technology. 2. You can't win through conventional warfare because you have no collective ability to project power except through the incumbent government. 3. You can't win through guerilla warfare because guerillas never win wars. They just make life really suck for everyone.

jeromec 17y ago

I totally disagree; your analysis is flawed. The reason movements like Al Qaeda will lose is because their ideology doesn't have the right support. When you try to sidestep the right to freedom this country was founded upon you are picking a fight that extends into the core of the people, including the intellectuals that made all that high tech weaponry possible. Also, our all-volunteer military is made up of our people - our brothers, cousins, sisters etc.

forensic 17y ago
The intellectuals are pacified by their McMansions and $150,000 student debt. Your brothers, cousins, and sisters don't understand what is wrong with censoring the internet. They think it's a good thing because they're afraid of pedophiles. The whole point (as I explained) of modern non-lethal weaponry is that it can be used to enforce bad laws without causing a public uprising. Brothers, cousins, sisters, etc think waterboarding is okay because they watch too much 24. They think anyone who flees in pain due to LRAD is a pussy cause it's just like loud music.
- jeromec 17y ago
  You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country? And our family and friends which make up the military wouldn't know which side to stand on? I'm not talking about censoring some silly media, I'm talking about if it came down to the difference between liberty and tyranny, of infringing assembly and free speech.
  - forensic 17y ago
    >You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country? WTF has been going on for the last 40 years? There has been an accelerating decline in liberty since about 1970. Your sisters, cousins, etc have proven themselves to be easily manipulated idiots. Intellectuals have proven themselves to be spineless lovers of comfort who will complain but never put anything tangible on the line.
    - jeromec 17y ago
      I meant if a line was crossed. I don't think we've crossed any line. We've come close, but the people still hold power.
  - lsc 17y ago
    pretty much. Do you really think we'd take our cheeto-stained hands off the keyboard and start shooting at people? I know I'm not ready to get shot for some abstract idea. Sure, I'd maybe spend some time and/or money, but I don't think anyone but the crazies would start shooting. Besides, I think that shooting back is rarely effective in modern warfare; it's all about 'hearts and minds' these days, not about who can kill more of the other dudes.
    - roc 17y ago
      Iran seems to be demonstrating the limit of what's achievable by winning 'hearts and minds' alone.
      - lsc 17y ago
        It's pretty difficult to invade another country and win any 'hearts and minds' - I mean, no matter how shitty the previous government was, you are a foreign invader. I think Iran (and Iran's success against the USSR) is a prime example of how 'hearts and minds' is much more important than guns and bombs in modern warfare.

scythe 17y ago

>There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevitably lose. Isn't that what they said about the Viet Cong?

Maktab 17y ago
Who eventually did lose to an extent. By the '70s the war had moved into a more conventional phase with the NVA doing the majority of the fighting. When Saigon fell it was not to VC guerillas but NVA tanks.
forensic 17y ago
Have you seen vietnam? They definitely didn't win anything from that war. It sure is a hollow victory if your entire country and way of life is destroyed and all your descendants are horribly mutated, etc. If winning means getting what Vietnam got, I'll take surrender and slavery.
- jeromec 17y ago
  What happened to land of the free, home of the brave? Are you sure you're American?
  - ramchip 17y ago
    Why would he be? I don't mean to troll, and perhaps I missed the tongue-in-cheek element, but this kind of corny quote means nothing. Canada did not fight a war for the "land of the free" and is doing quite fine in its slavery to the British crown, thank you.

kls 17y ago

>You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech? You don't need any of this, In guerrilla warfare mechanized infantry (tanks) are really only good for expensive body armor and neither side could use nukes if they had them (you would just be bombing yourself). Utilizing either would cause to many civilian casualties and the nasty part of guerrilla warfare is that for each 1 killed their are 50 recruits that have seen family and friends die (hardcore). Once this happens you have one of three choices surrender, withdraw or genocide.

forensic 17y ago
I feel like we're going in circles. 1. You can't win through pacifism because of modern anti-protestor technology. 2. You can't win through conventional warfare because you have no collective ability to project power except through the incumbent government. 3. You can't win through guerilla warfare because guerillas never win wars. They just make life really suck for everyone.