From: Adam Flinton 

Tony Ingenoso wrote:
> ...on terms that won't damage the tender sensitivites of liberals that is.
>
> The US military has crossed swords with a LOT of insurgencies in the
> past...usually in areas not crawling with media though where rougher methods
> can be employed.
>


Njjaaaarg...you see it's comments like that which reveal the fact that you
simply do not understand the fight you're in.

It's not a matter of the "media" or "liberals". In fact
most of the people you want to influence are actually very much of the
"religious right", however they are Islamic religious right.

They have shown themselves to be quite comfortable with "rougher
methods" e.g. slowly sawing people's heads off on tv.

In many many ways they are your soul mates in that they too see the world
just as you do (e.g. they love executions, direct military action against
evil-doers, are willing to accept "colateral damage" etc.etc.).

The aim is to isolate all who believe in political violence & extremism
in favour of pragmatism & dialog. That includes on the US side as well.
I think Bush is getting this at last (e.g. Rice is doing fairly well &
seems to have more authority than Cheney, & even Rumsfeld has come
round to this pov).

Note that dialog has to be on a
moderate/pragmatistmoderate/pragmatist level as otherwise it's just
a waste of time & everyone simply gets to move air & make noise.

The usual shape is:

extremistmoderate/pragmatistmoderate/pragmatistextremist

WRT AQ, the only people who can put them back in their box are those people
who brought them out i.e. the Muslim population as a whole.

Adam


> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:42e0632a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Our Military is not designed to fight an insurgency.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5