Whose strategery is working better? Bush or Osama?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
:roll: Rainsford. There's even room in this big world for idealists too. Although I agree with you in theory, it's SOOO far from reality it isnt even worth a second thought.

Hehe, don't have an argument, eh? Seriously though, this high school debate bullshit is silly...if I'm SOOOO wrong, it should be pretty easy to tell me why. Your position that I'm so wrong but you can't be bothered to say why says quite clearly that you think I'm right but are just too stubborn to admit it.

I promise you, my views aren't fueled by "idealism". In fact, between the two of us, I'd say you're ideology is way more likely to be getting between you and reality than mine is. You've got a conservative mindset, if not all the views that go along with it, and part of that mindset is the stance that force is the direct solution to any problem and that any movement towards an "intellectual" solution is a sign of liberal weakness. The idea that intellectualism, in any form, could defeat our new-age enemies is unacceptable because it calls into question the foundation of your political philosophy...that every problem ultimately boils down to storming the beaches at Normandy and punching some Nazi in the face. Which is great, but not real helpful in solving real world problems that ultimately don't give a shit if you feel uncomfortable thinking with the head on top of your shoulders for a change.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong in my views of your motivations here...it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've rambled on without knowing what the hell I'm talking about. But it doesn't really matter if you're honestly thinking about things or if you think action movies are reality, and it doesn't matter if I'm some soft in the head liberal or I consulted my magic 8 ball or whatever. The fact is that I think I'm right and you're wrong. And honestly, don't flatter yourself too much...I could give a shit if I "win" arguing with some random guy on the Internet...I hold the view I hold because I honestly think that it's the best way to win and keep us safe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our enemy is alive today because they hide and wage war from within the populace. It is our restraint against filtering the population that permits their very existence. I consider this a grave mistake on our part, not taking advantage of our military superiority while we still have it.

One day we will not have it, and we will witness first hand how war should be waged. Unfortunately for us we?ll be on the receiving end.

Bush?s folly is Iraq. He believes ?democracy? will give them a peaceful society. Whereas in reality it?ll breed a second Iranian style nation which harbors hatred and acts of war against us and which spreads these traits as a religion.

As for Osama, he is just a man. The ideology is the entity that has declared war, and it is here on our soil in good shape. As we sit idly by and watch it flourish, like the morons that we are.


One man is not better than the other really, the scope of this conflict is far grander in nature than figureheads. It?s more like terrorism is the natural counter for pursuing acts of war against a superior force that is not willing to filter you out of the population. Who wins this war merely depends on will. The will to do all that is necessary. The side that possesses that will win.

Pff, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. In the first place, a democratic Islamic radical nation would be about the farthest thing possible from Iran. An "Iranian style nation" is a nation in which a radical religious clergy rules in an autocratic manner over a population that is much more moderate, and much less anti-Israel and anti-American than their non-elected leaders. Democracy in Iran would be the biggest boost possible for moderating the region that I can imagine, I could only hope that democracy in Iraq would give similar results.

In the second place, there is no magic technique to "filter the population", certainly not in the Middle East where the bad guys blend in quite well with their host population. I realize that it's impossible for guys like you to think of a problem without trying to solve it with some metaphorical form of shooting somebody in the face, but this is not a problem you're going to solve by thinking with your balls. Our "military superiority" is not the tool to deal with this problem, mostly because terrorism is precisely calculated to fight against an enemy that HAS military superiority. This isn't a battle where we can win through superior firepower, because most of the time our firepower isn't pointed in the right direction. We win by being smarter than they are, which is much less viscerally satisfying for people eager to prove how tough and manly they are (through a convenient proxy of their armed forces, of course), but it's way morel likely to...you know...WORK!

And finally, we're not going to lose our military superiority or become engaged in a real military conflict...that's just stupid. These assholes are terrorists because they CAN'T occupy New York or send flights of bombers to level San Francisco. They don't have the resources, they don't have the expertise, and they don't have the brains to do anything to substantially threaten this country. Period.

Jaskalas is a terrified psychotic. In his fear of a flea he would kill a million dogs. The lives of innocent people mean nothing to him if their deaths will stop his fear. Of course nothing can stop his fear but remembering what made him crazy.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our enemy is alive today because they hide and wage war from within the populace. It is our restraint against filtering the population that permits their very existence. I consider this a grave mistake on our part, not taking advantage of our military superiority while we still have it.

One day we will not have it, and we will witness first hand how war should be waged. Unfortunately for us we?ll be on the receiving end.

Bush?s folly is Iraq. He believes ?democracy? will give them a peaceful society. Whereas in reality it?ll breed a second Iranian style nation which harbors hatred and acts of war against us and which spreads these traits as a religion.

As for Osama, he is just a man. The ideology is the entity that has declared war, and it is here on our soil in good shape. As we sit idly by and watch it flourish, like the morons that we are.


One man is not better than the other really, the scope of this conflict is far grander in nature than figureheads. It?s more like terrorism is the natural counter for pursuing acts of war against a superior force that is not willing to filter you out of the population. Who wins this war merely depends on will. The will to do all that is necessary. The side that possesses that will win.

Pff, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. In the first place, a democratic Islamic radical nation would be about the farthest thing possible from Iran. An "Iranian style nation" is a nation in which a radical religious clergy rules in an autocratic manner over a population that is much more moderate, and much less anti-Israel and anti-American than their non-elected leaders. Democracy in Iran would be the biggest boost possible for moderating the region that I can imagine, I could only hope that democracy in Iraq would give similar results.

In the second place, there is no magic technique to "filter the population", certainly not in the Middle East where the bad guys blend in quite well with their host population. I realize that it's impossible for guys like you to think of a problem without trying to solve it with some metaphorical form of shooting somebody in the face, but this is not a problem you're going to solve by thinking with your balls. Our "military superiority" is not the tool to deal with this problem, mostly because terrorism is precisely calculated to fight against an enemy that HAS military superiority. This isn't a battle where we can win through superior firepower, because most of the time our firepower isn't pointed in the right direction. We win by being smarter than they are, which is much less viscerally satisfying for people eager to prove how tough and manly they are (through a convenient proxy of their armed forces, of course), but it's way morel likely to...you know...WORK!

And finally, we're not going to lose our military superiority or become engaged in a real military conflict...that's just stupid. These assholes are terrorists because they CAN'T occupy New York or send flights of bombers to level San Francisco. They don't have the resources, they don't have the expertise, and they don't have the brains to do anything to substantially threaten this country. Period.

Jaskalas is a terrified psychotic. In his fear of a flea he would kill a million dogs. The lives of innocent people mean nothing to him if their deaths will stop his fear. Of course nothing can stop his fear but remembering what made him crazy.

I like your thinking, and I'd also kill a million of those middle eastern dogs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our enemy is alive today because they hide and wage war from within the populace. It is our restraint against filtering the population that permits their very existence. I consider this a grave mistake on our part, not taking advantage of our military superiority while we still have it.

One day we will not have it, and we will witness first hand how war should be waged. Unfortunately for us we?ll be on the receiving end.

Bush?s folly is Iraq. He believes ?democracy? will give them a peaceful society. Whereas in reality it?ll breed a second Iranian style nation which harbors hatred and acts of war against us and which spreads these traits as a religion.

As for Osama, he is just a man. The ideology is the entity that has declared war, and it is here on our soil in good shape. As we sit idly by and watch it flourish, like the morons that we are.


One man is not better than the other really, the scope of this conflict is far grander in nature than figureheads. It?s more like terrorism is the natural counter for pursuing acts of war against a superior force that is not willing to filter you out of the population. Who wins this war merely depends on will. The will to do all that is necessary. The side that possesses that will win.

Pff, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. In the first place, a democratic Islamic radical nation would be about the farthest thing possible from Iran. An "Iranian style nation" is a nation in which a radical religious clergy rules in an autocratic manner over a population that is much more moderate, and much less anti-Israel and anti-American than their non-elected leaders. Democracy in Iran would be the biggest boost possible for moderating the region that I can imagine, I could only hope that democracy in Iraq would give similar results.

In the second place, there is no magic technique to "filter the population", certainly not in the Middle East where the bad guys blend in quite well with their host population. I realize that it's impossible for guys like you to think of a problem without trying to solve it with some metaphorical form of shooting somebody in the face, but this is not a problem you're going to solve by thinking with your balls. Our "military superiority" is not the tool to deal with this problem, mostly because terrorism is precisely calculated to fight against an enemy that HAS military superiority. This isn't a battle where we can win through superior firepower, because most of the time our firepower isn't pointed in the right direction. We win by being smarter than they are, which is much less viscerally satisfying for people eager to prove how tough and manly they are (through a convenient proxy of their armed forces, of course), but it's way morel likely to...you know...WORK!

And finally, we're not going to lose our military superiority or become engaged in a real military conflict...that's just stupid. These assholes are terrorists because they CAN'T occupy New York or send flights of bombers to level San Francisco. They don't have the resources, they don't have the expertise, and they don't have the brains to do anything to substantially threaten this country. Period.

Jaskalas is a terrified psychotic. In his fear of a flea he would kill a million dogs. The lives of innocent people mean nothing to him if their deaths will stop his fear. Of course nothing can stop his fear but remembering what made him crazy.

If it wasn't the Muslims it'd just be someone else for him, like his parents, his siblings, his neighbors or maybe the school down the street.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Only because we are handling this war with kid gloves. I guarantee if we had the hatred and desire to kill as he does, he woulda been dead 5 years ago. And the death toll woulda been in the hundreds of thousands.

The Romans have surrounded an area, starved the population by blocking food from going in, and then going in and killing everyone.

The Germans built camps with gas chambers and poisoned the undesirables.

The US fire and atomic bombed civilizian areas.

Which non-kid glove war strategy do you recommend and support?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sad to say, it looks like the religious wacko living in a remote region of the world and on daily dialysis has outhought and out-stategeried the US President.

Let's tally up the scorecard shall we:

- Al Quaida uprooted from the safe haven of Afghanistan, with its leadership's freedom of movement highly restricted to the mountain regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- Bin Laden mitigated to nothing more than a figurehead, who only seems capable of releasing a video tape every couple of months.
- Muslim factions in Iraq, rather than embracing radical Islam, are starting to reject it and work with American forces to root out Al Quaida.
- The development of a counter movement across the Muslim world in opposition to the violent nature of radical Islam.

The biggest mistake Bush made was for us to invade Iraq under false pretenses, and not engage the world community in his decision. There was clearly a strategic benefit to placing a military presence right in radical Islam's backyard...the strategy in and of itself was quite sound...how Bush implemented that strategy is why Iraq turned into such a mess.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: techs
Sad to say, it looks like the religious wacko living in a remote region of the world and on daily dialysis has outhought and out-stategeried the US President.

Is this just trolling for the heck of it? What, specifically, are you referencing?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time to clobber Abu Badguy before he gets all rowdy on a commercial airliner.

How about if they are never allowed to be in our country in the first place?

If, as you suggest, we cannot beat them militarily then surely we could try to prevent them from gaining a foothold here? That seems to be the alternative to killing the radicals. Of course we are neither beating them militarily nor preventing separatist militant camps like Islamberg, NY.

They have a sizeable foothold here on our soil. Even if we nuked the rest of the world we?d suffer terrorist attacks here at home. So perhaps we can come to the conclusion that nothing we do can be effective, in foreign countries, if we fail to do anything about those who are already here.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time to clobber Abu Badguy before he gets all rowdy on a commercial airliner.

How about if they are never allowed to be in our country in the first place?

If, as you suggest, we cannot beat them militarily then surely we could try to prevent them from gaining a foothold here? That seems to be the alternative to killing the radicals. Of course we are neither beating them militarily nor preventing separatist militant camps like Islamberg, NY.

They have a sizeable foothold here on our soil. Even if we nuked the rest of the world we?d suffer terrorist attacks here at home. So perhaps we can come to the conclusion that nothing we do can be effective, in foreign countries, if we fail to do anything about those who are already here.

There are plenty of Christians here who hate America. Should we kick out Christians?

If we did, Jonks and I would REALLY rule this place.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The biggest mistake Bush made was for us to invade Iraq under false pretenses, and not engage the world community in his decision. There was clearly a strategic benefit to placing a military presence right in radical Islam's backyard...the strategy in and of itself was quite sound...how Bush implemented that strategy is why Iraq turned into such a mess.

Giving them Democracy is not sound in principal. For our blood we turned Iraq into a second Iran. The Democrats are correct in this regard, this sort of thing should not be forced when the outcome is against us.

For another example, what stands between Pakistan?s religious leaders and nuclear weapons? Hint: the man they are creating a civil war to forcibly remove, after several failed assassination plots. When they gain control, it?ll be as Democratic a nation as Iran, and just as ?friendly?.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time to clobber Abu Badguy before he gets all rowdy on a commercial airliner.

How about if they are never allowed to be in our country in the first place?

If, as you suggest, we cannot beat them militarily then surely we could try to prevent them from gaining a foothold here? That seems to be the alternative to killing the radicals. Of course we are neither beating them militarily nor preventing separatist militant camps like Islamberg, NY.

They have a sizeable foothold here on our soil. Even if we nuked the rest of the world we?d suffer terrorist attacks here at home. So perhaps we can come to the conclusion that nothing we do can be effective, in foreign countries, if we fail to do anything about those who are already here.

There are plenty of Christians here who hate America. Should we kick out Christians?

If we did, Jonks and I would REALLY rule this place.

Probably some difference between Christians and a foreign militant ideology. Key aspect is that it?s foreign, non-native, and invading our culture like a parasitic infection. Are you suggesting we SHOULD play host to our killers, maybe we should recognize their plight and built their separatist militant camps for them?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
:roll: Rainsford. There's even room in this big world for idealists too. Although I agree with you in theory, it's SOOO far from reality it isnt even worth a second thought.

Hehe, don't have an argument, eh? Seriously though, this high school debate bullshit is silly...if I'm SOOOO wrong, it should be pretty easy to tell me why. Your position that I'm so wrong but you can't be bothered to say why says quite clearly that you think I'm right but are just too stubborn to admit it.

I promise you, my views aren't fueled by "idealism". In fact, between the two of us, I'd say you're ideology is way more likely to be getting between you and reality than mine is. You've got a conservative mindset, if not all the views that go along with it, and part of that mindset is the stance that force is the direct solution to any problem and that any movement towards an "intellectual" solution is a sign of liberal weakness. The idea that intellectualism, in any form, could defeat our new-age enemies is unacceptable because it calls into question the foundation of your political philosophy...that every problem ultimately boils down to storming the beaches at Normandy and punching some Nazi in the face. Which is great, but not real helpful in solving real world problems that ultimately don't give a shit if you feel uncomfortable thinking with the head on top of your shoulders for a change.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong in my views of your motivations here...it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've rambled on without knowing what the hell I'm talking about. But it doesn't really matter if you're honestly thinking about things or if you think action movies are reality, and it doesn't matter if I'm some soft in the head liberal or I consulted my magic 8 ball or whatever. The fact is that I think I'm right and you're wrong. And honestly, don't flatter yourself too much...I could give a shit if I "win" arguing with some random guy on the Internet...I hold the view I hold because I honestly think that it's the best way to win and keep us safe.

Alright. As far as idealism goes, your stament of

The "stupid" part comes in because we've lost before we ever start, by treating this as a war problem in the first place. Terrorism itself is not a war problem, and the radical ideology that fuels the Islamic brand of terrorism is not a war problem either.

implies a few things. And I also admit I may be reading too much into what I believe you're eluding to, afterall many have done the same to me. But, that said...I never said it was a war problem per se. But to think war isnt the answer IS idealist.

Many have said, and criticized, the right for waging a war they wont admit to: a war on Islam. I'll agree to that. It's been brought up many many times of people quoting the Qoran, the one and only holy document Islam is based on. I DO agree MOST Islamists are a peaceful people. I totally agree. But. It's the fringes we are fighting here. Sure, the inquisistions were terrible and killed many in the name of God. But we arent dealing with that now. Could we in the future? Perhaps. But now we're dealing primarily with Islamists. They DO take the Qoran literally in regards to convert or die. It's been shown the Quoran specifically says no single person judges individuals as a target of death. Rather, it specifically says it is up to the follower to make that judgement. Thats what these radicals do. They judge then kill. In the case of 9/11, it wasnt meant so much as a terrorist act as much as it was a judgement act. My point about the kid gloves is simply there is no other way to deal with this mindset than with brutal war, and ultimatley death.

The right goes to extremes of saying things like "You cant solve anything by inviting these extremists to a cup of tea". I agree thats a little far fetched, but the point is the same. Because there are so many splinter groups with many "leaders", when we find these groups, really the only answer is guns, missles, and bombs. These guys dont respond to diplomatic solutions. To think otheriwse is idealistic.

Also your comment of

we're applying force in the wrong way...applying MORE force isn't going to help. In fact, it's not a question of "force" at all...most terrorists can't stand up to anything more forceful than a handful of beat cops...which is why they are terrorists in the first place. The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time

The biggest real world problem is your comment we need to focus on how to make sure beat cops are in the right place at the right time. I disagree about the beat cop mentality. These extremists are VERY well armed. Sure, not all of them, but we have to assume they are when we find a cell. Better to overprepare IMO. Also, these groups are nearly impossible to infiltrate insofaras getting GOOD intel goes. I really dont think it's realistic to think we can be proactive in this regard. Our reaction is ALWAYS defensive. And the only answer is STRONG force. Or war. Or whatever you want to call it. With NO kid gloves.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it wasn't the Muslims it'd just be someone else for him, like his parents, his siblings, his neighbors or maybe the school down the street.

Some of us care about a group that is killing our people. Some of us don't, and instead assault those who would stop our killers.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Some of us care about a group that is killing our people. Some of us don't, and instead assault those who would stop our killers.

...While making excuses for those who kill under the guise of some religion or perversion thereof. Sick and disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Probably some difference between Christians and a foreign militant ideology. Key aspect is that it?s foreign, non-native, and invading our culture like a parasitic infection. Are you suggesting we SHOULD play host to our killers, maybe we should recognize their plight and built their separatist militant camps for them?

We both know that's not what I'm saying, and putting words in my mouth only makes you look stupid.

What I AM saying is that threats to the United States of America come in all forms and sizes. I agree that stricter standards for immigration are a good idea. I don't believe that excluding all Muslims or all Middle Easterners is a smart idea. I don't see any problem with having Muslims in this country. Extremist Muslims are the issue.

My original statement, however, has to do with Fundamentalist Christian Sects such as the Phelps Church, which actively celebrates the deaths of American Soldiers. It was there simply to put things in perspective.

Saying that we're giving our enemies a foothold in America is completely blowing things way out of proportion, trying to invoke the idea of "America under Siege," when this is hardly the case.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Some of us care about a group that is killing our people. Some of us don't, and instead assault those who would stop our killers.

Again, here's a great example of your willingness to completely disregard reality in order to satisfy a desire to simplify and polarize this nation.

The vast majority of Americans care that we're facing a hostile threat. It's HOW we face it that matters.

America is made up of its people. As one of those people, I can say that I want America to approach foreign policy and combat policy with a strong sense of morality and values. Torture, illegal imprisonment and general ignorance are not the standards by which I hold this nation.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Some of us care about a group that is killing our people. Some of us don't, and instead assault those who would stop our killers.

Again, here's a great example of your willingness to completely disregard reality in order to satisfy a desire to simplify and polarize this nation.

The vast majority of Americans care that we're facing a hostile threat. It's HOW we face it that matters.

America is made up of its people. As one of those people, I can say that I want America to approach foreign policy and combat policy with a strong sense of morality and values. Torture, illegal imprisonment and general ignorance are not the standards by which I hold this nation.

Funny...everyone I've ever talked to has the opinion of fire a minuteman up their collective asses *shrug* But then I dont hang out at poetry readings either 🙂

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny...everyone I've ever talked to has the opinion of fire a minuteman up their collective asses *shrug* But then I dont hang out at poetry readings either 🙂

I'm certainly no hippie, if that's what you're suggesting. I grew up believing that America is a nation that holds itself to the highest standards of conduct. It's certainly a disappointment to find out that we're operating at close to the same level as those we oppose. When we torture and imprison people with no evidence of wrong-doing, and when we subject enemy-combatants to years of imprisonment and humiliation with putting them on trial or providing reason, we create thousands and thousands of enemies, and this time we're actually giving them reason to hate us.

Short-sightedness and "black-n-white" solutions in the Middle East have unfailingly backfired in our faces time and time again. Unwillingness to modify our approach displays a supreme level of ignorance and idiocy on our part. You infer that hippies are living in a dream world. Check yourself, because you're living on one too.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny...everyone I've ever talked to has the opinion of fire a minuteman up their collective asses *shrug* But then I dont hang out at poetry readings either 🙂

I'm certainly no hippie, if that's what you're suggesting. I grew up believing that America is a nation that holds itself to the highest standards of conduct. It's certainly a disappointment to find out that we're operating at close to the same level as those we oppose. When we torture and imprison people with no evidence of wrong-doing, and when we subject enemy-combatants to years of imprisonment and humiliation with putting them on trial or providing reason, we create thousands and thousands of enemies, and this time we're actually giving them reason to hate us.

Short-sightedness and "black-n-white" solutions in the Middle East have unfailingly backfired in our faces time and time again. Unwillingness to modify our approach displays a supreme level of ignorance and idiocy on our part. You infer that hippies are living in a dream world. Check yourself, because you're living on one too.

Sorry Tec I wasnt implying youre a hippy 😛 My point was all these peace activists, and those who fail to ackowledge that diplomatic solutions are not an option. You know what makes these terrorist cell give pause when thinking up how to judge and kill us next? Fear. Thats all they know is fear. If they fear retribution, they'll pause.

Also...I NEVER said ANYTHING about the ME when you talk about "black n white" solutions. Dealing with the ME ingeneral I concede diplomatic solutions are possible. But we arent talking about that. There is no higher ground here. There is no diplomatic solutions. There is force, bullets, and missles. Period.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny...everyone I've ever talked to has the opinion of fire a minuteman up their collective asses *shrug* But then I dont hang out at poetry readings either 🙂

I'm certainly no hippie, if that's what you're suggesting. I grew up believing that America is a nation that holds itself to the highest standards of conduct. It's certainly a disappointment to find out that we're operating at close to the same level as those we oppose. When we torture and imprison people with no evidence of wrong-doing, and when we subject enemy-combatants to years of imprisonment and humiliation with putting them on trial or providing reason, we create thousands and thousands of enemies, and this time we're actually giving them reason to hate us.

Short-sightedness and "black-n-white" solutions in the Middle East have unfailingly backfired in our faces time and time again. Unwillingness to modify our approach displays a supreme level of ignorance and idiocy on our part. You infer that hippies are living in a dream world. Check yourself, because you're living on one too.

Sorry Tec I wasnt implying youre a hippy 😛 My point was all these peace activists, and those who fail to ackowledge that diplomatic solutions are not an option. You know what makes these terrorist cell give pause when thinking up how to judge and kill us next? Fear. Thats all they know is fear. If they fear retribution, they'll pause.

Also...I NEVER said ANYTHING about the ME when you talk about "black n white" solutions. Dealing with the ME ingeneral I concede diplomatic solutions are possible. But we arent talking about that. There is no higher ground here. There is no diplomatic solutions. There is force, bullets, and missles. Period.

That's great, Rambo, but "force" isn't quite so simple as you make it sound.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time to clobber Abu Badguy before he gets all rowdy on a commercial airliner.

How about if they are never allowed to be in our country in the first place?

If, as you suggest, we cannot beat them militarily then surely we could try to prevent them from gaining a foothold here? That seems to be the alternative to killing the radicals. Of course we are neither beating them militarily nor preventing separatist militant camps like Islamberg, NY.

They have a sizeable foothold here on our soil. Even if we nuked the rest of the world we?d suffer terrorist attacks here at home. So perhaps we can come to the conclusion that nothing we do can be effective, in foreign countries, if we fail to do anything about those who are already here.

I'm not talking about "them" and "they", I'm talking about going after specific individuals who are going to do specific bad things. That's the problem with your viewpoint, you're looking for large generalizations of the problem that we can then solve with some big policy or broad application of force. Terrorism doesn't work like that, there is no "them", just a bunch of assholes who we stop a few at a time. Terrorism works pretty much like any other crime, there is no broad, easy solution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
:roll: Rainsford. There's even room in this big world for idealists too. Although I agree with you in theory, it's SOOO far from reality it isnt even worth a second thought.

Hehe, don't have an argument, eh? Seriously though, this high school debate bullshit is silly...if I'm SOOOO wrong, it should be pretty easy to tell me why. Your position that I'm so wrong but you can't be bothered to say why says quite clearly that you think I'm right but are just too stubborn to admit it.

I promise you, my views aren't fueled by "idealism". In fact, between the two of us, I'd say you're ideology is way more likely to be getting between you and reality than mine is. You've got a conservative mindset, if not all the views that go along with it, and part of that mindset is the stance that force is the direct solution to any problem and that any movement towards an "intellectual" solution is a sign of liberal weakness. The idea that intellectualism, in any form, could defeat our new-age enemies is unacceptable because it calls into question the foundation of your political philosophy...that every problem ultimately boils down to storming the beaches at Normandy and punching some Nazi in the face. Which is great, but not real helpful in solving real world problems that ultimately don't give a shit if you feel uncomfortable thinking with the head on top of your shoulders for a change.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong in my views of your motivations here...it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've rambled on without knowing what the hell I'm talking about. But it doesn't really matter if you're honestly thinking about things or if you think action movies are reality, and it doesn't matter if I'm some soft in the head liberal or I consulted my magic 8 ball or whatever. The fact is that I think I'm right and you're wrong. And honestly, don't flatter yourself too much...I could give a shit if I "win" arguing with some random guy on the Internet...I hold the view I hold because I honestly think that it's the best way to win and keep us safe.

Alright. As far as idealism goes, your stament of

The "stupid" part comes in because we've lost before we ever start, by treating this as a war problem in the first place. Terrorism itself is not a war problem, and the radical ideology that fuels the Islamic brand of terrorism is not a war problem either.

implies a few things. And I also admit I may be reading too much into what I believe you're eluding to, afterall many have done the same to me. But, that said...I never said it was a war problem per se. But to think war isnt the answer IS idealist.

Many have said, and criticized, the right for waging a war they wont admit to: a war on Islam. I'll agree to that. It's been brought up many many times of people quoting the Qoran, the one and only holy document Islam is based on. I DO agree MOST Islamists are a peaceful people. I totally agree. But. It's the fringes we are fighting here. Sure, the inquisistions were terrible and killed many in the name of God. But we arent dealing with that now. Could we in the future? Perhaps. But now we're dealing primarily with Islamists. They DO take the Qoran literally in regards to convert or die. It's been shown the Quoran specifically says no single person judges individuals as a target of death. Rather, it specifically says it is up to the follower to make that judgement. Thats what these radicals do. They judge then kill. In the case of 9/11, it wasnt meant so much as a terrorist act as much as it was a judgement act. My point about the kid gloves is simply there is no other way to deal with this mindset than with brutal war, and ultimatley death.

The right goes to extremes of saying things like "You cant solve anything by inviting these extremists to a cup of tea". I agree thats a little far fetched, but the point is the same. Because there are so many splinter groups with many "leaders", when we find these groups, really the only answer is guns, missles, and bombs. These guys dont respond to diplomatic solutions. To think otheriwse is idealistic.

Also your comment of

we're applying force in the wrong way...applying MORE force isn't going to help. In fact, it's not a question of "force" at all...most terrorists can't stand up to anything more forceful than a handful of beat cops...which is why they are terrorists in the first place. The problem that we should be focusing on is how to make sure those beat cops are looking in the right place at the right time

The biggest real world problem is your comment we need to focus on how to make sure beat cops are in the right place at the right time. I disagree about the beat cop mentality. These extremists are VERY well armed. Sure, not all of them, but we have to assume they are when we find a cell. Better to overprepare IMO. Also, these groups are nearly impossible to infiltrate insofaras getting GOOD intel goes. I really dont think it's realistic to think we can be proactive in this regard. Our reaction is ALWAYS defensive. And the only answer is STRONG force. Or war. Or whatever you want to call it. With NO kid gloves.

"These extremists" are armed with box cutters. You're right, maybe a "beat cop" is the wrong solution, hell a few people with a reasonable good knowledge of martial arts could stop your average terrorist attack. "War is not the answer" isn't an ideology you have to be a peace loving hippie to come up with, just look around. We've been waging an actual war against the terrorists for 6 years...it doesn't seem to be working too well so far. I'm not saying war doesn't have its place, this just doesn't happen to be it.

 

[blackangst1]

snipped to save space

Originally posted by: Rainsford
"These extremists" are armed with box cutters. You're right, maybe a "beat cop" is the wrong solution, hell a few people with a reasonable good knowledge of martial arts could stop your average terrorist attack. "War is not the answer" isn't an ideology you have to be a peace loving hippie to come up with, just look around. We've been waging an actual war against the terrorists for 6 years...it doesn't seem to be working too well so far. I'm not saying war doesn't have its place, this just doesn't happen to be it.

Yeah youre right. Every attack claimed by muslim terrorists has been with a box cutter 😕 That was some fuckin box cutter on 9/11!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
snipped to save space

Originally posted by: Rainsford
"These extremists" are armed with box cutters. You're right, maybe a "beat cop" is the wrong solution, hell a few people with a reasonable good knowledge of martial arts could stop your average terrorist attack. "War is not the answer" isn't an ideology you have to be a peace loving hippie to come up with, just look around. We've been waging an actual war against the terrorists for 6 years...it doesn't seem to be working too well so far. I'm not saying war doesn't have its place, this just doesn't happen to be it.

Yeah youre right. Every attack claimed by muslim terrorists has been with a box cutter 😕 That was some fuckin box cutter on 9/11!

What, you don't remember when the terrorists blew up that Marine barracks with a bunch of box cutters? Don't forget about the first WTC bombing, the one where they loaded a truck up with a bunch of box cutters......

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No doubt Osama is dancing the jig in his cave over news like the following:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap...ME-GEN-Iraq.php?page=1

BAGHDAD: Former Sunni insurgents asked the U.S. to stay away, then ambushed members of al-Qaida in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.

Fighters of the Islamic Army in Iraq staged the surprise attack Friday afternoon near Samarra ? sending advance word to Iraqi police and requesting that U.S. helicopters stay away, since the fighters had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from al-Qaida.

Much of the Islamic Army in Iraq has joined the U.S.-led fight against al-Qaida in Iraq, along with Sunni tribesmen and other former insurgents repelled by the terror group's brutality and extremism.

A top Islamic Army leader known as Abu Ibrahim told The Associated Press that his fighters attacked al-Qaida southeast of Samarra, a mostly Sunni city about 90 kilometers (60 miles) north of Baghdad.

"We found out that al-Qaida intended to attack us, so we ambushed them at 3 p.m. on Friday," Abu Ibrahim said.

...

And at Baghdad's most revered Sunni shrine, the Abu Hanifa mosque, voices blasted from loudspeakers Saturday urging residents to turn against al-Qaida as well: "We are your sons, the sons of the awakening, and we want to end the operations of al-Qaida...We call upon you not to be frightened, and to cooperate with us."

So-called "awakening councils" have sprouted up in communities across Iraq, where members swear allegiance to Iraq's U.S.-backed government and disavow militants. U.S. officials say the councils have been key to tamping violence in recent months.

The backlash against al-Qaida among Iraq's Sunni Arab community began in Iraq's western Anbar province last year: Americans recruited Sunni sheiks to help oust al-Qaida from their home turf, and the movement spread to former militants who once even fought U.S. and Iraqi soldiers themselves.