• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dealing with Terrorism?

img10411696707.jpeg


COOCOO COOCOO COOCOO
 
Shadownexius said:
The problem with this is that we dont need take only militant islamic people. If the United States represents is self as a land of opporunity only to its people, and a dicator to the world. Third world countries like those of the Middle East would be afraid of us. An eye for an eye is a radical response to a radical terrorist group. It is the only language they do speak; so if they recieve this response they will understand the United States will not tolorate terrorism and will not negotiate, unless the loss of life is more on the terrorist side. It is not lunatic. I wish it wasnt a necessary cause, but truthfully it is the only thing that would speak louder then words to them. The only other responce is that if it fails, we nuke Mecca with the largest yield bomb we have using Norads Atlas targeting system. Precise targeting, no warning we are going to bomb them. We would cripple their pilgrimage and place a message that the terrorist understand. Radical terriorism calls for Radical Rules of Engagement.
Click to expand...

So much for thought-out responses. How is this anything but a rephrasing of your first post? Do you have a response to any of my objections?
 
Ladewig said:
A world in which people believe that the appropriate response is 1000 eyes for an eye quickly becomes a world of only blind people.
Click to expand...

You made me think of a couple of pertinent quotes.
"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." attributed to Mohandas Ghandi
and
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. " attributed to Albert Einstein

And Shadownexius, I would like to join everyone else in voicing my opinion that your are off your rocker and I might I add that it is suggested that you seek help.
 
Shadownexius said:
... we nuke Mecca with the largest yield bomb we have using Norads Atlas targeting system.
Click to expand...

cic2.jpg


The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System with a modified Boeing 707-300 series commercial airframe, remanufactured with radar, communications, operations and control subsystems and 27-foot long radome under the forward fuselage housing a 24-foot long, side-looking phased array antenna is what I'd recommend over that old Atlas system.

First, we gotta take out Al Jazeera though.
Click to expand...
 
fruit_loup said:
You made me think of a couple of pertinent quotes.
"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." attributed to Mohandas Ghandi
and
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. " attributed to Albert Einstein

And Shadownexius, I would like to join everyone else in voicing my opinion that your are off your rocker and I might I add that it is suggested that you seek help.
Click to expand...
Terrorism, crime, and all things that we struggle daily, yearly, etc are the result of people working around current rules and governing systems. It is not by the mere fact that I am insane or crazy, but rather that to make a point to someone in their own language is more efficient then talking to them in a language that is completely foreign. Radical ideas are need to deal with a Radical terrorist group. We need to make it so they fear death, not of themselves, but of the people they would never think we would kill as a result.
If you dont agree then try to negotiate with terrorist, oh wait you can't. I propose we negotiate life with lives. The higher the cost for them, the more radical we seem. and the more radical we seem, the more un predictable we are.
 
I suggest we hang Timothy McVeigh's daughter, son, mother-in-law and uncles. That will teach him a lesson.
 
Shadownexius said:
The problem with this is that we dont need take only militant islamic people. If the United States represents is self as a land of opporunity only to its people, and a dicator to the world. Third world countries like those of the Middle East would be afraid of us. An eye for an eye is a radical response to a radical terrorist group. It is the only language they do speak; so if they recieve this response they will understand the United States will not tolorate terrorism and will not negotiate, unless the loss of life is more on the terrorist side. It is not lunatic. I wish it wasnt a necessary cause, but truthfully it is the only thing that would speak louder then words to them. The only other responce is that if it fails, we nuke Mecca with the largest yield bomb we have using Norads Atlas targeting system. Precise targeting, no warning we are going to bomb them. We would cripple their pilgrimage and place a message that the terrorist understand. Radical terriorism calls for Radical Rules of Engagement.
Click to expand...

People have called you a kook. Gee that's not real civil.... is it? (Darat, you listening?) I imagine they are right though..."kook" is a mighty subtle choice to call someone who advocates the nuclear annihilation of millions in order to punish a select few. But beside the point that it's a mind numbingly stupid move; it's also counterproductive and amazingly ineffective to boot.

For all of those out there who love to criticise the WoT and Bush's prosecution of same...look yee upon the alternative: If/when we go all wobbley on fighting the WoT and pull our troops out allowing our terrorist friends the opportunity and safe haven to figure out how to hit us really badly...maybe an AQ style multiple attack using the fruits of the Iranian "peaceful power" program? What to do when most of the nation starts baying for revenge ala our kooky friend here? How much resistance would there be to the surviving members of the US government "going Roman" on the Islamic world then?

In the best of circumstances we continue to fight a low-level WoT for many more years and argue the minutae here like the thoughtful brainiacs we are. But if things go badly...well...I can imagine how bad they could get. If we're not careful to do the smart thing now, we could be faced with alot more "Shadownexius's" someday.

The sad truth is that we are in a global war to change the Muslim world. We'll either change them; or they'll change us. There's not much wiggle room. Such stark dichtomies are a feature of world-wars...and make no mistake; that's just what this is.

-z
 
Shadownexius said:
Terrorism, crime, and all things that we struggle daily, yearly, etc are the result of people working around current rules and governing systems. It is not by the mere fact that I am insane or crazy, but rather that to make a point to someone in their own language is more efficient then talking to them in a language that is completely foreign. Radical ideas are need to deal with a Radical terrorist group. We need to make it so they fear death, not of themselves, but of the people they would never think we would kill as a result.
Click to expand...

The part that confuses me the most is that you think that "if they fear the death of their loved ones" they will stop attacking U.S. troops and/or citizens. Are you really that clueless as to have no idea that many of these people are motivated by such over-the-top religious zealotry that deaths of Muslim women and children in astronomical numbers will not stop them?

Let's leave aside the morality or the practicality of your plan. We shouldn't implement it because IT WON'T WORK. Your plan will create more terrorists than it destroys. Your plan will bring more terrorist acts to U.S. soil.
 
rikzilla said:
For all of those out there who love to criticise the WoT and Bush's prosecution of same...look yee upon the alternative: If/when we go all wobbley on fighting the WoT and pull our troops out allowing our terrorist friends the opportunity and safe haven to figure out how to hit us really badly...maybe an AQ style multiple attack using the fruits of the Iranian "peaceful power" program?
-z
Click to expand...


For the hundreth time, THE WAR ON TERROR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INVADING IRAQ!!!!! We are not criticizing Bush for devoting too many resources to the WoT, we are criticizing his removing resources from the War on Terror to invade Iraq. If we hadn't pulled U.S. troops out of Afghanistan in order to send them to Iraq, we might have caught the man responsible for 9/11: Osama bin Laden. WTF is George Bush doing to capture or kill that guy?
 
Ladewig said:
For the hundreth time, THE WAR ON TERROR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INVADING IRAQ!!!!! We are not criticizing Bush for devoting too many resources to the WoT, we are criticizing his removing resources from the War on Terror to invade Iraq. If we hadn't pulled U.S. troops out of Afghanistan in order to send them to Iraq, we might have caught the man responsible for 9/11: Osama bin Laden. WTF is George Bush doing to capture or kill that guy?
Click to expand...

Shouting CAPS will not make your argument more effective. OIF has everything to do with the larger WoT. The example of Iraq and it's erstwhile dictator is an instructive one to the remaining tyrants/jihadis of the world. It can either be a useful and deterring example of steadfast resolve...or it can be allowed to become an example of western weakness. If we run away from Baghdad as we did Saigon it won't end this time....this time they'll follow us home.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Shouting CAPS will not make your argument more effective. OIF has everything to do with the larger WoT. The example of Iraq and it's erstwhile dictator is an instructive one to the remaining tyrants/jihadis of the world. It can either be a useful and deterring example of steadfast resolve...or it can be allowed to become an example of western weakness. If we run away from Baghdad as we did Saigon it won't end this time....this time they'll follow us home.

-z
Click to expand...

Uh huh. They used that exact argument about Viet Nam...who is now a valuable trading partner. Making the same mistakes does not make us tough; it makes us stupid.
 
Ladewig said:
we are criticizing his removing resources from the War on Terror to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
But that's where the terrorists are. Do you think if we bailed, they'd throw us a good-bye party, say, "Thanks for getting rid of that madman Saddam for us, now we'll get to work building a stable democracy that will make the world a better place to live"?
 
BPSCG said:
But that's where the terrorists are. Do you think if we bailed, they'd throw us a good-bye party, say, "Thanks for getting rid of that madman Saddam for us, now we'll get to work building a stable democracy that will make the world a better place to live"?
Click to expand...

Do I even have to say this? The only reason they are there is because Bush opened the door for them.

Oh..and btw:
Can I interrupt you and tell you what Donald Rumsfeld did in Baghdad? Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad, was met by Saddam Hussein at the airport. That's right. Donald Rumsfeld. With a big Rumsfeld grin on his face said, "I'm really glad to be here in Baghdad with my good friend, Saddam Hussein," and proceeded to carry messages back and forth for the Reagan administration of active military and economic support for Saddam Hussein. I think it's important you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist of course because there are people who make up stories. You just need to look at the facts to understand that the same Rumsfeld and the same Bush advisers, the coterie of C.I.A. and military types who have been around the family of the father and are now in the administration of the son, are the same people who built up Saddam Hussein as our guy, and turned a blind eye at his atrocities, and slapped him on the back, literally, physically, Rumsfeld in his jovial way, slapped Saddam on Iraq Saddam and said, great to do business with Iraq, our friend. And the same people used the same funds to support Osama bin Laden in the late 1970's and early 1980's in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. We create these monsters and then when's not convenient we cover them up. The press is not what it used to be and has forgotten how to investigate criminal acts by the White House. That's where we are today.
Click to expand...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/09/1445208
 
Mark said:
Do I even have to say this? The only reason they are there is because Bush opened the door for them.
Click to expand...
Yep, they're there exchanging gunshots with American soldiers. That's fine with me because that's what American soldiers get paid to do. I don't.

Now, where would they be if we left? Would they put down their arms like the nice people they really are (they're really freedom fighters, don't you know), and get to work building a stable democracy that will make the world a better place to live?

Or would they decide, "Hmpf - no infidels here. Time to go hunt them in their own countries"?

Are they blowing up mosques because American soldiers are inside them?
 
Mark said:
Uh huh. They used that exact argument about Viet Nam...who is now a valuable trading partner. Making the same mistakes does not make us tough; it makes us stupid.
Click to expand...

I call bullsh!t.

Can you cite examples of Vietnam era arguments where it was claimed Vietnamese would attack us in the US if we withdrew?
 
Mark said:
Do I even have to say this? The only reason they are there is because Bush opened the door for them.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but that doesn't change that that's where they are. And the jihadis comming in from other countries to fight the US in Iraq are not comming to the US to blow stuff up here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom