The terrorists have already won

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Terrorism causing airport security isn't terrorists winning.

Terrorism electing right-wing crazies, creating cover for broader civil rights reduction etc., that's bad.

How about if we just take the battle to them? Attack the terrorists where they live and breed?

Then we won't have to worry about them coming here and we can elect more flower children. We can have the Eloi and the Morlock parties. I'm voting Morlock, but dig those crazy Eloi chicks!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,770
6,770
126
How about if we just take the battle to them? Attack the terrorists where they live and breed?

Then we won't have to worry about them coming here and we can elect more flower children. We can have the Eloi and the Morlock parties. I'm voting Morlock, but dig those crazy Eloi chicks!

It would require that you don't mind murdering innocent people, that you are and have become a terrorist yourself. It seems that the high road is always harder because you have to climb, no?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
It would require that you don't mind murdering innocent people, that you are and have become a terrorist yourself. It seems that the high road is always harder because you have to climb, no?

Hey, keep my personal life out of this! Everything was sanctioned, really.

Whether the road is high or low is difficult to discern amidst the fog which envelops us and the nearsightedness which afflicts us all.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,182
11,357
136
The reason why we are failing is because we are the ones who are afraid, not the terrorists. It is because of foolish liberals that we will never do what is necessary to win this war. Instead it will continue for decades to come. In order to win we must destroy the terrorists homes and slaughter them without mercy. We must make them understand the true nature of terror. Everyone knows this.

Do you think the English should have done that in Northern Ireland?
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
Do you think the English should have done that in Northern Ireland?

Break the will of the terrorists? Of course. That's how you win decisively. Anything less will just unnecessarily prolong the conflict. It's simple strategy. Everyone knows this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Just like in Vietnam right? That worked out well.

The funny thing is, the failure n Vietnam was't 'losing the war', it was in 'fighting the war'.

We should have backed the end of colonialism long before, end of story. Instead, we tried to support French colonialization, and when that failed, a US-loyal regime being in power.

Even if we'd 'won the war', we'd have been wrong, for not having suppported their independance, and forcing them to accept a regime whose loyalty was compromised to Vietnam to support us.

We'd still have killed millions of Vietnamese needlessly, a bad policy even with a 'win'.

On the other hand, we'd have prevented the domino theory from letting China springboard to conquer Laos, Thailand and other countries.

Oh, wait.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Break the will of the terrorists? Of course. That's how you win decisively. Anything less will just unnecessarily prolong the conflict. It's simple strategy. Everyone knows this.

So, you are advocating that wen fighting an enemy, there should be no restraint.

If the most effective tool you have is killing their civilians with terrorism, you should do it. Right?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Hey, keep my personal life out of this! Everything was sanctioned, really.

Whether the road is high or low is difficult to discern amidst the fog which envelops us and the nearsightedness which afflicts us all.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone needs a moral guide dog that you do.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
How about if we just take the battle to them? Attack the terrorists where they live and breed?

Then we won't have to worry about them coming here and we can elect more flower children. We can have the Eloi and the Morlock parties. I'm voting Morlock, but dig those crazy Eloi chicks!

Sometimes, that's the right choice. Indeed, it's even more than an extremely tiny percent of when you think, it could be as high as a very small percentage.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
So, you are advocating that wen fighting an enemy, there should be no restraint.

If the most effective tool you have is killing their civilians with terrorism, you should do it. Right?

Of course. Is this so hard to understand? When fighting a war, you destroy the enemy. If the enemy refuses to give up, you keep slaughtering them until they do. It's so simple. Everyone knows this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Of course. Is this so hard to understand? When fighting a war, you destroy the enemy. If the enemy refuses to give up, you keep slaughtering them until they do. It's so simple. Everyone knows this.

So, a question, now that we've clear up you endorse terrorism unconditionally.

Let's say you are in the Hatfield family, and there's another battle expected today with the McCoys.

Your family kills Wanda McCoy while she milks a cow in revenge for last week, but they kill your brother in revenge for last week.

Your other brother says boy, all this killing sure is killing nice people, and asks if you have any ideas.

You say?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Of course. Is this so hard to understand? When fighting a war, you destroy the enemy. If the enemy refuses to give up, you keep slaughtering them until they do. It's so simple. Everyone knows this.

It's kind of like government spending. If there isn't enough money just raise taxes until there is enough. It's so simple.

Everyone knows this.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Of course. Is this so hard to understand? When fighting a war, you destroy the enemy. If the enemy refuses to give up, you keep slaughtering them until they do. It's so simple. Everyone knows this.

Ya. But Obama is trying to have it both ways.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
So, a question, now that we've clear up you endorse terrorism unconditionally.

Let's say you are in the Hatfield family, and there's another battle expected today with the McCoys.

Your family kills Wanda McCoy while she milks a cow in revenge for last week, but they kill your brother in revenge for last week.

Your other brother says boy, all this killing sure is killing nice people, and asks if you have any ideas.

You say?

I say that is all foolishness. That is not strategy, that is just stupidity. Strategy would be sneaking over to the McCoys and poisoning their water, or burning their homes, or slaughtering them all in their sleep. Strategy, Craig234 is a means to a goal. What you described accomplishes nothing. The idea is to end the conflict, not prolong it. Your scenario does nothing to end the conflict. One person is killed and then another is killed in retaliation. That solves nothing. What will end the conflict is if most or all of one side is killed. It doesn't matter how, all that matters is that they are killed. This will show that side that they have no choice but to surrender or die. So you see, Craig234, that is the nature of strategy in combat. That is how you end conflicts through terror. Sure there are other ways, and those should be explored, but when forced to use violence, you must be willing to go all out and not hold back because to hold back is foolish and will cost lives. Everyone knows this.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
The terrorists goal is not to make us afraid they are going to kill us, its to actually kill us. In your hypothetical example, we won.


Incorrect. If the object was death, then there would be more dead. Terrorism is a technique, a strategy, to keep an enemy off balance and ideally have them commit resources on foolish irrelevancies. In the case of the last administration, it worked brilliantly because Bush went into Iraq when he should have concentrated on Afghanistan. Bin Laden played the US consummately with a success that he never dreamed of.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I say that is all foolishness. That is not strategy, that is just stupidity. Strategy would be sneaking over to the McCoys and poisoning their water, or burning their homes, or slaughtering them all in their sleep. Strategy, Craig234 is a means to a goal. What you described accomplishes nothing. The idea is to end the conflict, not prolong it. Your scenario does nothing to end the conflict. One person is killed and then another is killed in retaliation. That solves nothing. What will end the conflict is if most or all of one side is killed. It doesn't matter how, all that matters is that they are killed. This will show that side that they have no choice but to surrender or die. So you see, Craig234, that is the nature of strategy in combat. That is how you end conflicts through terror. Sure there are other ways, and those should be explored, but when forced to use violence, you must be willing to go all out and not hold back because to hold back is foolish and will cost lives. Everyone knows this.


I like King Crimson.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Hypothetical scenario: osama appears on national tv, publicly declaring that al-qaeda will not be performing any more attacks on airplanes. will anything change with regards to airport security?

it would be foolish for the tsa to believe such a claim by al-qaeda, so heightened security measures will still be in place.

a year passes with no terrorist attacks. two years... five years, then ten. think of millions spent on security in that time. think of the millions of legitimate travelers inconvenienced with security procedures - all for nothing.

the terrorists have already won, by making everyone paranoid and fearful. even if al-qaeds does nothing, we have no choice but to keep up this security theater, for the fear that something might happen sometime

To bad for you. Your beaten/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5oL4Js-prc
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
So, you are advocating that wen fighting an enemy, there should be no restraint.

If the most effective tool you have is killing their civilians with terrorism, you should do it. Right?

Pretty much. Proven by Romans, Proven by Napoleon, proven by Custer, proven by Cortez, proven by the British against the Boers, proven by the British against India, proven by the Waffen SS, Proven by USA against Japs and Germans, proven by Iraq against the Kurds, proven by Iran against the Kurds... Even CNN agrees.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/07/past-war-offers-afghanistan-lessons-and-its-not-vietnam/

Yet the United States won, in part, because it was willing to be brutal, some military historians say. According to an official State Department account of the war, at least 4,200 American soldiers, 20,000 Filipino combatants and as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence and famine during the war.

Filipino fighters deliberately sought to drag the war on with hit-and-run tactics that would turn the American public against the war, historians say. It was the classic guerilla strategy: Win by avoiding big, pitched battles and melt into the civilian population.

But the U.S. military responded to the guerilla strategy with a simple strategy of their own, some historians say: Kill them all.

Civilian casualties were not accidental, but intentional, says Lt. Col. Michael E. Silverman, an Iraq war veteran and a counterinsurgency training consultant for the U.S. Army.

“Victory there was achieved by a brutal strategy of near genocide. … Many of the officers and sergeants who fought the war were veterans of the Indian Wars and brought with them the idea from Gen. Philip Sheridan: ‘The only good Indians I’ve seen were dead.’’’

The U.S. military forced Filipino villagers outside of their villages into population centers where they could be separated from guerillas. They killed villagers’ livestock and torched crops, says John Hinshaw, a history professor at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania.

“They were the same tactics that worked against the Plains Indians in the 1870s and 1880s,” he says

“We killed hundreds of thousands of people in the process. A lot of it was due to disease and starvation. It was a very savage war.”
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That is how you end conflicts through terror. Sure there are other ways, and those should be explored, but when forced to use violence, you must be willing to go all out and not hold back because to hold back is foolish and will cost lives. Everyone knows this.

Or they should know this before engaging in warfare. Anything else is a waste of men materials and money.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Or they should know this before engaging in warfare. Anything else is a waste of men materials and money.

Nations should think twice before not letting the US screw with them.

Didn't Ho Chi Minh understand he should accept the French colonization like the US wanted? Didn't Iran realize they should sell all the below market oil to the US it wanted? Didn't Chile realize not to elect a leftist?

When will countries learn, that when the US is screwing with them, the price of not permitting it is very high. The world will be such a better place when the US can screw with countries and not deal with blowback.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Pretty much. Proven by Romans, Proven by Napoleon, proven by Custer, proven by Cortez, proven by the British against the Boers, proven by the British against India, proven by the Waffen SS, Proven by USA against Japs and Germans, proven by Iraq against the Kurds, proven by Iran against the Kurds... Even CNN agrees.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/07/past-war-offers-afghanistan-lessons-and-its-not-vietnam/

The US had a brutal war killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, held the Phillippines for a period of time until, realizing it had no reason to hold it, said 'oops' and got rid of it. What a fine example of justified killing.

So we confirm you too are approving of terrorism.

Now, you say the Holocaust was wrong when then was ok, why again?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Nations should think twice before not letting the US screw with them.

Didn't Ho Chi Minh understand he should accept the French colonization like the US wanted? Didn't Iran realize they should sell all the below market oil to the US it wanted? Didn't Chile realize not to elect a leftist?

When will countries learn, that when the US is screwing with them, the price of not permitting it is very high. The world will be such a better place when the US can screw with countries and not deal with blowback.

You only see things from their POV ignoring Arab supremicsim, Supporting what's right, theft of assets and labors we spent to develop areas on their invitation. And don't want to deal with the blowback OF USA. Cute game but doesn't change the fact winning warfare and changing hearts and minds permantly is done through semi genocide proven time and time again.

Incidentally this is why I laugh at the right worried about Muslim threat taking over and all that, as if they have capacity.
 
Last edited:

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
OP assume security is all for nothing unless AQ blows shit up

How fucking stupid.