Obviously you aren?t getting what I?m trying to say. What I consider war is killing and defeating your enemy no matter what the cost. Not buying oil from them or dealing with them like we are with Arafat. Who?s funding the Islamic fundamentalist? Where are they based? We know where they are and where the money comes from what are we doing about it?
Obviously you aren?t getting what I?m trying to say. What I consider war is killing and defeating your enemy no matter what the cost. Not buying oil from them or dealing with them like we are with Arafat. Who?s funding the Islamic fundamentalist? Where are they based? We know where they are and where the money comes from what are we doing about it?
It depends on what your definition of winner & loser.
It is unfortunate that we have extremists that willing to do anything for their cause. Terrorist is here to stay with our society and it is not going to going to go away, because another faction will come up to replace the one that died off. The only thing we could do is try to minimizes their activities.
Ps. I just saw an interesting Black Sunday film. It is a fictitious film about the Black September terrorist plot to blow up a Goodyear blimp over the Super Bowl stadium with 80,000 people & the US president.
Black September and the Back September Terror Movement: a brief history on the middle east terrorist & Arafat.
Black September: Tough negotiations - shown how the UK caved into the terrorist demand for Leila Khaled, and mentioned the 'Israel won't lift a bloody finger'
Perhaps you failed to notice that little symbol at the end of that line, it's called a smiley...it often denotes sarcasm or hyberbole.
<--- SEE, there's another one.Obviously I was exaggerating, but there certainly has been a redirection of foundation values in the last 50-100 years.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,976
- 141
- 106
Who knows what the future may bring but local law enforcement is gearing up to deal with homicide bombers. Sporting events, religious services,concerts think of all the public gatherings that take place in the US on a daily basis. Clearly the US is a target rich environment
and there is little or no defense for this kind of warfare.
and there is little or no defense for this kind of warfare.
US really has no choice but to win. As for the Muslim terrorists, they will turn onto themselves eventually. Suni and Shiite don't get along. These people are just looking for a reason to die - to become a matyr. Kinda sad really.
Naaa, we'll do what we have to, and I mean whatever we have to. We're going to try and stamp out these Islamic extremists the 'nice' way first, but if worse comes to worse, and we HAVE to drop a couple nukes and vaporize the entire Arab world to protect our way of life...we'll do it and I'll applaud it.
I think that with the current situation, it would be virtually impossible for the US to loose a war with anyone much less a bunch of poorly trained (as soldiers), low-tech fanatics. Has anyone seen the movie "Blackhawk Down"? True story, and at the end of the movie they said that over 1000 Samalis (sp?) had been killed and 19 Americans had been killed. That was on Samali ground and the American soldiers were ambused. That's quite a difference in number dead.
Look, we might eventually decide that being involved in the middle east isn't worth the trouble it's causing us, and we may pull out. However, I don't think we will ever be forced out, and I certainly don't think we will loose to the terrorists. If push ever came to shove, I think the "war" would be over in about five minutes. Terrorists do not have nuclear weapons, or high tech bombers, or well trained special forces units or any of the other advantages the US has in an all out war. And terrorists also need a country to hide in and support them. So I ask you all, name one country that could stand up to the US if it came to all out war.
Don't kid yourselves, the terrorists may have training camps, and they may have weapons, and they may have religious fanaticism, but they wouldn't have a prayer in an all out conflict with even the US (not to mention the rest of the world).
Look, we might eventually decide that being involved in the middle east isn't worth the trouble it's causing us, and we may pull out. However, I don't think we will ever be forced out, and I certainly don't think we will loose to the terrorists. If push ever came to shove, I think the "war" would be over in about five minutes. Terrorists do not have nuclear weapons, or high tech bombers, or well trained special forces units or any of the other advantages the US has in an all out war. And terrorists also need a country to hide in and support them. So I ask you all, name one country that could stand up to the US if it came to all out war.
Don't kid yourselves, the terrorists may have training camps, and they may have weapons, and they may have religious fanaticism, but they wouldn't have a prayer in an all out conflict with even the US (not to mention the rest of the world).
Bah... we're not at war with the Islamic terrorists. Ok, maybe we're in a self-proclaimed "war on terrorism," a great political move, if you ask me. So why would we lose? Our "victory" will also be self-proclaimed, unless we want to drag the war out to make it look like we're still militarily active. So the only way we could really "lose" is if we either decided to lose or the "Islamic terrorists" swept the United States. But they're not really an organization, just an informal "group" of "Islamic terrorists," so we can't *really* declare war on them, per se.
Rainsford, if it came to all-out nuclear war, the only country that could stand up to the US is Russia. And we killed their economy with the so-called "Cold War" so that now we're trying to back our nuclear stockpiles down.
Our real concern is with terrorist conflicts -- not really wars. If a terrorist gets a nuke, you're in trouble. They don't care about diplomatic solutions, they don't care about tactical solutions, they don't care about talking, and most of all, they don't care what happens to their homeland. You can't declare war on a group like that, and hence, you can't win one, because like PrinceofWands said, terrorism is an idea, and hence the battle must be fought on a whole different plane.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
No. You can not win this conflict with weapons, bombs, tanks, guns, etc. From their point of view, these people are fighting evil and for their homeland.
For peace the world needs to:
1. To establish a Palestinian homeland.
2. Improve the quality of life of these people.
I am not sure how you deal with people who are taught that anyone who does not share their belief system is evil.
For peace the world needs to:
1. To establish a Palestinian homeland.
2. Improve the quality of life of these people.
I am not sure how you deal with people who are taught that anyone who does not share their belief system is evil.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
If a Palestinian homeland was established, they would just find something else to hate (i.e. the US). Also, we do not need to improve their quality of life; they need to improve their own quality of life. They have the resources to do so, but choose not to. ("They" in this case being the entire Islamic world.)
Edit: Al-Qaeda could give a flying hoot about a Palestinian homeland..
For peace the world needs to:
1. To abolish the Palestinians.
2. Take the lives of these people.
1. To abolish the Palestinians.
2. Take the lives of these people.
This is not a "war" as traditionally defined. Traditionally "Wars" are between Nations or within a Nation.
This is more like a policing action. a group of criminals are threatening to hurt and kill large amounts of people.
It's obviously a matter of terminology, but this is more acts of crime than acts of war.
understanding the distinction helps us answer the question tho.
the question is will Law and Order prevail or will Chaos and Terrorist prevail. In my opinion Law and Order will prevail and we'll go to WAR (destroying large amounts of middle eastern countries) if that is what is required for Law and Order to prevail.
I'll apply this to the Isrealie issue. As long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise and enter into serious peace talks with Isreal, they have NO RIGHTS as a sovereign state. As long as they are not a Sovereign state their only alternative is to obey the LAWS of Isreal or Leave Isreal. Suicide bombings are NEVER AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.
This is more like a policing action. a group of criminals are threatening to hurt and kill large amounts of people.
It's obviously a matter of terminology, but this is more acts of crime than acts of war.
understanding the distinction helps us answer the question tho.
the question is will Law and Order prevail or will Chaos and Terrorist prevail. In my opinion Law and Order will prevail and we'll go to WAR (destroying large amounts of middle eastern countries) if that is what is required for Law and Order to prevail.
I'll apply this to the Isrealie issue. As long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise and enter into serious peace talks with Isreal, they have NO RIGHTS as a sovereign state. As long as they are not a Sovereign state their only alternative is to obey the LAWS of Isreal or Leave Isreal. Suicide bombings are NEVER AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.
No, the US will not lose. Even at this point right now, the US has already "won" quite a bit in this war. The best way of looking at this is it's similar to the previous "war" on organized crime, the Gangsters, that took place in the 1930's. Organized crime survived, as will terrorism, but the nature of it will be changed. Organized crime was flagrantly impacting society then just as terrorism is now. That's really what this war is about, that terrorism has been allowed to grow and organize itself in such a way that terrorist leaders think they can do what they will and influence countries in thier policy making decisions. The arrogance of this is easily likened to the gangsters of the 1930's. This is what will be defeated and destroyed as it well should be, but they'll never eradicate terrorism just as they never eradicated organized crime.
I'm getting nervious as how this duscusion progress. Bio & Nuke weapons aren't the solution and it is not some thing that we should flaunt. If these weapons ever were use it would give other nation an excuse to use it in any conflict that they are in. It could escalate to an all out WWIII nuke war.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
no, because, ultimately , the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans can be used as a last resort to isolate us (and our buddies Canada/Mexico) from our enemies
of course, it would mean a HUGE change in lifestyle with all the Wal-Marts devoid of cheap China produced goods
of course, it would mean a HUGE change in lifestyle with all the Wal-Marts devoid of cheap China produced goods
the USA? I doubt it. I think an American president will actually use nuclear wepons before allowing that to happen. But the French civilization is in a grave danger. And you know what? I don't mind.
It depends what you mean by "lose." Will it take our country getting destroyed/taken over for us to lose? If so, then not a chance in hell.
If to lose, all we have to do is bend to the terrorists whims, do what they say, operate on their schedule and still have our people be convinced that they're the victims, then yes, losing is possible
I'd be right there beside you
If to lose, all we have to do is bend to the terrorists whims, do what they say, operate on their schedule and still have our people be convinced that they're the victims, then yes, losing is possible
Well said
I'd be right there beside you
warren buffet (www.berkshirehathaway.com) recently in terms f insurance described the terrorism war as ultimately unwinnable only combatable, and the scenario of a $1T insurance nuclear event in manhattan as inevitable, its just a case of when.
the big thing would be for america to stop the regime support, egypt and saudi have two of the worst hr recods on the pllanet and they are both hugely supported by us policy, its ot surprising some of them become jihadis.
the big thing would be for america to stop the regime support, egypt and saudi have two of the worst hr recods on the pllanet and they are both hugely supported by us policy, its ot surprising some of them become jihadis.
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
It depends what you mean by "lose." Will it take our country getting destroyed/taken over for us to lose? If so, then not a chance in hell.
If to lose, all we have to do is bend to the terrorists whims, do what they say, operate on their schedule and still have our people be convinced that they're the victims, then yes, losing is possible
Well said
I'd be right there beside you
Allah translates into "God" folks... now.. if you're not religious, that's cool, but if you believe in God/a God, then perhaps you should think about what you're saying for a moment.. or perhaps not, since many of you don't anyway
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter