NationStates Jolt Archive

before you read this, I suggest you view at least one of the following, but I warn you with the utmost that it is extremely graphic, I mean, you'll view a murder its that graphic. Okay, is that the disclaimer? Good. Go to Michael Savage.com(I don't care if you loathe the guy, this isn't about politics) and view one of his videos of the beheadings of hostages captured by terrorists.

Okay, your stomach finally settled? Good.

The same scum you saw kill innocent people are currently denouncing the free world as evil and immoral.

What the hell? Did I step through some wormhole on Sept. 12th, 2001? I mean, their statements just reak with hypocrisy and hatred, and thus, they must be put down like the mad SOBs they are. I don't want to hear your "We have to understand why they are doing this before we make conclusions," bullcrap. I say: Kill first, learn later.

The War in Iraq was a mistake on the part of tactics. Our boys didn't need to be there. We have bombs and missiles that could wipe out all of the Middle East with just the push of a button. We could easily destroy our enemy. Yet, because of the sensitivity crap, we have to send our boys and girls in there to die for what now seems to be nothing. We could also easily find out where the scum are. We could launch missiles that would hit within an inch of Osama Bin Laden's worthless excuse for a life.

When an infection is spreading through a city, what do the doctors do? They find where the source of the infection is, and they shut down or eliminate the source.

Same applies to terrorism. When extreme Islamic fundamentalism spreads, what should you do?

A) Hide under the bed

B) Try to negotiate with the turds

C) Attack a little bit and then give up

D) Show no mercy, kill the bastards, and go on with your life.

Personally, I'd take D. If we had chosen D on September 12th, 2001, I don't think we would be in this mess that we are now.

bump

And, naturally, by the same logic you would support an effort by the international community to destroy the organizations responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the current aggression?

I'm sorry, I thought this was going to be a serious thread about terrorism, not just another bloodthirsty rant. Oh well, maybe one day...

You're not making much sense either. You say "kill first, learn later" and at the same time use the analogy of doctors discovering the source of infection and shutting it down. Don't you think the doctors need to understand the nature of the infection if they are going to cure it?

Ah...another ill-concieved rant, which also makes the regular mistake of assuming that all terrorists are islamic fundamentalists...

Well the first way to combat terrorism is to not invade a country that would just make it worse. The second step would be to stop being so damn arrogant and cease with the imperial presidency business.

You're not making much sense either. You say "kill first, learn later" and at the same time use the analogy of doctors discovering the source of infection and shutting it down. Don't you think the doctors need to understand the nature of the infection if they are going to cure it?

There you go with such harebrained ideas as "logic" and "sense." As we all know, you can't wage a war on abstract nouns with any semblance of competence.

So, when you have a problem with terrorists, you commit genocide against the entire nation or race? :rolleyes:

I suppose the UK should have nuked Northern Ireland and Ireland itself for sheltering the terrorists, and carpet-bombed all the Irish-American communities on the US East Coast for funding them. :rolleyes:

There you go with such harebrained ideas as "logic" and "sense." As we all know, you can't wage a war on abstract nouns with any semblance of competence.
Sorry, sorry, I forgot about that for a moment. It shall not happen again - except if there is a thread about Penguins, of course. :)

I suppose the UK should have nuked Northern Ireland and Ireland itself for sheltering the terrorists, and carpet-bombed all the Irish-American communities on the US East Coast for funding them. :rolleyes:

What is required here is tactical grace.

and carpet-bombed all the Irish-American communities on the US East Coast for funding them. :rolleyes:

That would have been deserved, but still.

So, when you have a problem with terrorists, you commit genocide against the entire nation or race? :rolleyes:

I suppose the UK should have nuked Northern Ireland and Ireland itself for sheltering the terrorists, and carpet-bombed all the Irish-American communities on the US East Coast for funding them. :rolleyes:

How did you find out about Operation: Bye Bye Dublin?

Guards! Sieze Him!

People, I don't mean we should obliterate the Middle East. I was just showing how many weapons we have. First off, we have the best technology in the world, yet it isn't being used to find the scum who attacked us.

Second, my analogy is much simpler than what you think. We know where the terrorists are from. That's all that matters. Same with disease, find out where it is, destroy its source if possible, then understand the disease and destroy it itself. The source of terrorism is the terrorist, the disease is the terrorist's influence.

Big difference.

You want to hear a bloodthirsty rant? Listen to the scum's speeches.

before you read this, I suggest you view at least one of the following, but I warn you with the utmost that it is extremely graphic, I mean, you'll view a murder its that graphic. Okay, is that the disclaimer? Good. Go to Michael Savage.com(I don't care if you loathe the guy, this isn't about politics) and view one of his videos of the beheadings of hostages captured by terrorists.

Okay, your stomach finally settled? Good.

The same scum you saw kill innocent people are currently denouncing the free world as evil and immoral.

What the hell? Did I step through some wormhole on Sept. 12th, 2001? I mean, their statements just reak with hypocrisy and hatred, and thus, they must be put down like the mad SOBs they are. I don't want to hear your "We have to understand why they are doing this before we make conclusions," bullcrap. I say: Kill first, learn later.

The War in Iraq was a mistake on the part of tactics. Our boys didn't need to be there. We have bombs and missiles that could wipe out all of the Middle East with just the push of a button. We could easily destroy our enemy. Yet, because of the sensitivity crap, we have to send our boys and girls in there to die for what now seems to be nothing. We could also easily find out where the scum are. We could launch missiles that would hit within an inch of Osama Bin Laden's worthless excuse for a life.

When an infection is spreading through a city, what do the doctors do? They find where the source of the infection is, and they shut down or eliminate the source.

Same applies to terrorism. When extreme Islamic fundamentalism spreads, what should you do?

A) Hide under the bed

B) Try to negotiate with the turds

C) Attack a little bit and then give up

D) Show no mercy, kill the bastards, and go on with your life.

Personally, I'd take D. If we had chosen D on September 12th, 2001, I don't think we would be in this mess that we are now.

Ah yes, fight terrorism with genocide. That'll work. That's why firehose's are full of napalm and doctors kill sick people. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, fight terrorism with genocide. That'll work. That's why firehose's are full of napalm and doctors kill sick people. :rolleyes:
Again, read my second post first.

The source of terrorism is the terrorist,

And in this we once again prove that Holy paradise is thick as two short planks.

What is required here is tactical grace.
I fully agree. The UK could have turned Belfast and Boston to glass in the 1970s, but instead it spend 30 years fighting the terrorists with a civilian law and order apparatus. And you know what, it worked. Problem solved.

Americans are just instant gratification about everything. They can't handle the fact that the right approach might be half a century of surveilance, forensics and criminal prosecutions. No, the ones like the original poster at least, want to go for some final solution. :rolleyes:

And in this we once again prove that Holy paradise is thick as two short planks.
I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?

I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?

Okay. You are President of the United States. Please, tell us your plan to 'stop' terrorism.

I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?

What is the source of Terrorism?

or, more accurately

Why do people resort to terrorism?

Once you figure that question out you have the means of solving the issue.

Terrorism is what you get when you cross brainwashing with bloodlust. What to do is to prevent or counteract the brainwashing. Then the conscience will deal with the bloodlust, and if not, then they would be common criminals and treated as such.

I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?
That's like saying we should fight a fire by throwing grenades into it and pouring gasoline on it.

Terrorism is what you get when you cross brainwashing with bloodlust. What to do is to prevent or counteract the brainwashing. Then the conscience will deal with the bloodlust, and if not, then they would be common criminals and treated as such.

WRONG!

You still aren't looking at the 'why', only the 'how'.

Why do people feel the need to resort to terrorism?

I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?
Except your method appears to be to indescrimantly kill everyone in a region which makes no sense.

Terrorism is only effective as long as people fear it. The easiest way to defeat terrorism is to make it insignificant, and not fear it. Remeber, ytou have a greater chance of dtying next time you get in a car than you do of beong in a terrorist attack.

I fully agree. The UK could have turned Belfast and Boston to glass in the 1970s, but instead it spend 30 years fighting the terrorists with a civilian law and order apparatus. And you know what, it worked. Problem solved.

Americans are just instant gratification about everything. They can't handle the fact that the right approach might be half a century of surveilance, forensics and criminal prosecutions. No, the ones like the original poster at least, want to go for some final solution. :rolleyes:
The difference between the Northern Ireland terrorists and the Islamic terrorists is huge. The Northern Ireland terrorists had some sanity left in them to be willing to negotiate. The terrorists lack that. Now before you say,"Well, you lack it too, because you aren't willing to negotiate".

Do you think I'm willing to negotiate with people who killed 3,000 people or so in an unprovoked attack on 9/11? Do you think that, if I was alive in 1941, I'd be willing to negotiate with people who surprise attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th? Is that what you're suggesting? That I just give up all sense of nationalism and defending my freedom and start praying to Allah or bowing to an emperor?

People, I don't mean we should obliterate the Middle East. I was just showing how many weapons we have. First off, we have the best technology in the world, yet it isn't being used to find the scum who attacked us.
It probably is being used, chances are you, and the extreme majority of the world, aren't permitted to know just how close or far the US is from finding Osama.

Second, my analogy is much simpler than what you think. We know where the terrorists are from. That's all that matters. Same with disease, find out where it is, destroy its source if possible, then understand the disease and destroy it itself. The source of terrorism is the terrorist, the disease is the terrorist's influence.

Big difference.

You want to hear a bloodthirsty rant? Listen to the scum's speeches.

No, I don't think you do know where the terrorists are from. The Middle East is a huge place, and terrorists are in the minority there. And then of course there's all the terrorists who aren't in the Middle East.

As for bloodthirsy rants, we can just read your posts. Much easier to read them, I only speak English, Irish and German. And only English fluently.

So come on then. Whats your big plan to wipe out terrorism?

People, I don't mean we should obliterate the Middle East. I was just showing how many weapons we have. First off, we have the best technology in the world, yet it isn't being used to find the scum who attacked us.
Aha! A clue! Could it be that this is one of the many reasons why the tactics of terrorism is employed?

And exactly how is it not being used to find them? Satellites, AWACs, various instruments of eavesdropping and surveillance is just a few things I'm thinking of.


Second, my analogy is much simpler than what you think. We know where the terrorists are from. That's all that matters. Same with disease, find out where it is, destroy its source if possible, then understand the disease and destroy it itself. The source of terrorism is the terrorist, the disease is the terrorist's influence.

Big difference.

So... You would like to destroy Saudi Arabia?

This kind of thinking is just too simplistic.

You want to hear a bloodthirsty rant? Listen to the scum's speeches.
Yes, yours remind me of them. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Do you think I'm willing to negotiate with people who killed 3,000 people or so in an unprovoked attack on 9/11?
Do you think the leaders of Iraq should be willing to negotiate with the people who killed 30,000 people or so in an unprovoked attack on 3/19?

Paradise sounds like fighting terrorisim with more terrorisim.:headbang:
Just sayin, it'll make more problems than it solves.
I wholly agree with gravlen.

I am not stupid. I am reasonable. I believe we can and we should destroy terrorism. That is logical, isn't it?
You are not reasonable. You are irrational. Your solution makes you sufficiently worse than the terrorists for their victory to be preferable. How logical is that? :rolleyes:

WRONG!

You still aren't looking at the 'why', only the 'how'.

Why do people feel the need to resort to terrorism?
Why? Why?

Because they are jealous. They are jealous that a free nation can become the most powerful nation on Earth, and remain a free nation. They are jealous because we can create, we can improve, we can learn. What great thing has come out of the Middle East other than natural resources for about 700 years? The last great thing was the beginning of Islam, which if you look into history, was indeed meant by Mohammad to be a peaceful religion, one that respects other religion. But Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, began going on a conquesting spree that began in the 1300s and didn't end until the mid 1600s! And ever since they began their conquest in the 1300s, they have made no great contribution to the world. They like to open up old wounds, they can't let things go. That's why they resort to terrorism, because they are jealous, power-hungry, and refuse to live in a 21st century world.

The difference between the Northern Ireland terrorists and the Islamic terrorists is huge. The Northern Ireland terrorists had some sanity left in them to be willing to negotiate. The terrorists lack that. Now before you say,"Well, you lack it too, because you aren't willing to negotiate".

Do you think I'm willing to negotiate with people who killed 3,000 people or so in an unprovoked attack on 9/11? Do you think that, if I was alive in 1941, I'd be willing to negotiate with people who surprise attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th? Is that what you're suggesting? That I just give up all sense of nationalism and defending my freedom and start praying to Allah or bowing to an emperor?

I'm gonna say it anyway, you lack it too, because you aren't willing to negotiate.

Try and squeeze some intelligence out of those brain cells. What sounds better to you? A war on terrorists, which will lead to huge loss of life on both sides, civilian and military, and costs billions of dollars. Or negotiate with the terrorists and with enough time, effort and compromise, negate the need for anyone to even break a nail picking up a gun?

Do you think I'm willing to negotiate with people who killed 3,000 people or so in an unprovoked attack on 9/11?
Tell me, how many people died during the NI troubles?

I'm not jealous of America. I just think your ideas are stupid.

People, I don't mean we should obliterate the Middle East. I was just showing how many weapons we have. First off, we have the best technology in the world, yet it isn't being used to find the scum who attacked us.

Second, my analogy is much simpler than what you think. We know where the terrorists are from. That's all that matters. Same with disease, find out where it is, destroy its source if possible, then understand the disease and destroy it itself. The source of terrorism is the terrorist, the disease is the terrorist's influence.

Big difference.

You want to hear a bloodthirsty rant? Listen to the scum's speeches.

Hmm.... Perhaps you need a reintroduction to the concept of tactics. Sun Tzu, in the military classing art of war says it best when he points out that focusing on destroying an enemy in lieu of attaining the objective is poor strategy.

So. You tell me which goal is more important:

A) Preventing further attacks.
B) Revenge.

If your answer was goal A, I'm afraid that for all your slightly genocidal nonsense there can only be one answer: No. By seeking out and killing terrorists by large scale military action you only strengthen their cause by creating greater hate against the US and the west. A more informed strategy to court the public opinion of non-fundamentalist residents of the Middle East, which will take away the ability of the Fundamentalist Terrorists to grow, and to turn them against the Fundamentalists amongst them (shouldn't be hard, seeing the attrocities these people commit against them), which will destroy the movement by public pressure and consensus. We should cease supporting regimes opposed by people in the middle east (nothing pisses people off more than having the "Champion of 'democracy'" combatting self determination in Saudi Arabia). We should cease buying oil from the states in the Middle East that do support terrorists and switch to a rational, sustainable form of energy. We should cease antagonizing the world, providing radicals with recruiting materials. We should support international efforts to combat terrorrist economically, and, when necessary, violently.

To form an adequate strategy you MUST know your opponent and yourself. Anything else will never work.

What none of you understand is that, although I actually don't want to do this, we have to fight fire with fire. We, unfortunately, have to strike terror in the terrorists. Not by obliterating entire nations, but by showing our force. We have the technology. We have to show them that a 21st century nation is not going to bow down to a group of people stuck in the 13th century. Also, the terrorists will never negotiate with us. They hate us. They are jealous of us. They see negotiating as a weakness. That's why negotiation with them would fail.

Is that what you're suggesting? That I just give up all sense of nationalism and defending my freedom and start praying to Allah or bowing to an emperor?
I'm suggesting you grow up, finish school, get a job and some responsibilities, and then maybe have a think about the way the world works. At the moment, you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just a meaningless outpouring of frustration without any sense, knowledge or understanding.

What none of you understand is that, although I actually don't want to do this, we have to fight fire with fire.

Why?

Why? Why?

Because they are jealous. They are jealous that a free nation can become the most powerful nation on Earth, and remain a free nation. They are jealous because we can create, we can improve, we can learn. What great thing has come out of the Middle East other than natural resources for about 700 years? The last great thing was the beginning of Islam, which if you look into history, was indeed meant by Mohammad to be a peaceful religion, one that respects other religion. But Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, began going on a conquesting spree that began in the 1300s and didn't end until the mid 1600s! And ever since they began their conquest in the 1300s, they have made no great contribution to the world. They like to open up old wounds, they can't let things go. That's why they resort to terrorism, because they are jealous, power-hungry, and refuse to live in a 21st century world.

Wow. Such ignorance of what the US has done to bring this problem upon itself. :rolleyes:

No wonder you people will never win this "war on terror."

Why? Why?

Because they are jealous. They are jealous that a free nation can become the most powerful nation on Earth, and remain a free nation. They are jealous because we can create, we can improve, we can learn. What great thing has come out of the Middle East other than natural resources for about 700 years? The last great thing was the beginning of Islam, which if you look into history, was indeed meant by Mohammad to be a peaceful religion, one that respects other religion. But Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, began going on a conquesting spree that began in the 1300s and didn't end until the mid 1600s! And ever since they began their conquest in the 1300s, they have made no great contribution to the world. They like to open up old wounds, they can't let things go. That's why they resort to terrorism, because they are jealous, power-hungry, and refuse to live in a 21st century world.

Jealous? What utter nonsense. I don't claim to know why terrorists really hate the west(yes fool, the hate the whole western world, not just America).

Unless you show me proof of a history degree I refuse to accept your claim that Islam is the only great thing to come out of Middle East, apart from the natural resources.

Chances are they resort to terrorism because it's the most effective method of winning.

<snip>
But if I press the "war" button, I'll get a cookie! :(

Ah, and you bring up another great point. Didn't Bush reiterate over and over that violence would be the very last resort? Yet, he authorized a preemptive attack on Iraq a day before Rumsfeld could even say "go." Why did Bush want to invade so hastily? Perhaps partly because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group)? Or this (http://www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/driving/how.much.oil/oil.pump.500.jpg)?

I give up. We'll never win against terrorism with the likes of you people soon to become the work-force. Might as well get out the prayer mat.

Allah be praised.

Jealous? What utter nonsense. I don't claim to know why terrorists really hate the west(yes fool, the hate the whole western world, not just America).

Unless you show me proof of a history degree I refuse to accept your claim that Islam is the only great thing to come out of Middle East, apart from the natural resources.

Chances are they resort to terrorism because it's the most effective method of winning.
I said since the founding of Islam they have done nothing.

I am still wondering if to post in this thread or not. There are just so many wrong assumptions on what is pan-islamist terrorism that I don't even want to get into the right and effective methods to counter it.

What none of you understand is that, although I actually don't want to do this, we have to fight fire with fire. We, unfortunately, have to strike terror in the terrorists. Not by obliterating entire nations, but by showing our force. We have the technology. We have to show them that a 21st century nation is not going to bow down to a group of people stuck in the 13th century. Also, the terrorists will never negotiate with us. They hate us. They are jealous of us. They see negotiating as a weakness. That's why negotiation with them would fail.

What you don't understand isthat you don't have the technology to kill every terrorist all over the world, not without killing countless innocent civilians.

As I said before, they are not jealous of you.

Because they are jealous. <snip> What great thing has come out of the Middle East other than natural resources for about 700 years?
Algebra?
That's why they resort to terrorism, because they are jealous, power-hungry, and refuse to live in a 21st century world.
That by far is one of the most arrogant, racist, ignorant statements I've heard in a loooong, long time. This is why terrorists don't like America. Perfect example right here.

I give up. We'll never win against terrorism with the likes of you people soon to become the work-force. Might as well get out the prayer mat.

Allah be praised.
The UK managed it perfectly fine, with the methods of 'us people'.

Algebra?

That by far is one of the most arrogant, racist, ignorant statements I've heard in a loooong, long time. This is why terrorists don't like America. Perfect example right here.
Its because they sense weakness, dumbass.

I give up. We'll never win against terrorism with the likes of you people soon to become the work-force. Might as well get out the prayer mat.

Allah be praised.
People who fight a war with self-defeating methods are an enemy every bit as great as the enemy itself. We aren't the problem. You are. If there is a war, the last thing we need is people who shoot everyone in the foot because they didn't think things through.

People who fight a war with self-defeating methods are an enemy every bit as great as the enemy itself. We aren't the problem. You are. If there is a war, the last thing we need is people who shoot everyone in the foot because they didn't think things through.
Oh, so I'm the reason that we were attacked on 9/11. Let's all blame John shall we? I'm the most despicable character on Earth.

Its because they sense weakness, dumbass.
It's because they're sick of the West fucking with them. Please read up on history and you might know why they're resulting to terrorism. Also, they're SMART because they already know that no organized army will defeat the U.S.

I give up. We'll never win against terrorism with the likes of you people soon to become the work-force. Might as well get out the prayer mat.

Allah be praised.


A lot of people here are the work force, there's no become involved.

I said since the founding of Islam they have done nothing.

I stand by my request. Where is your history degree?

Why do people feel the need to resort to terrorism?

Because they don't have things they want. Same reason for petty theft.

Right! They are jealous!

And yet, Iran, a nation heading slowly towards freedom still hates the US and Israel. Why?

If they are jealous of our freedoms, why do they not rebel to gain their freedoms? Because they are not jealous of our freedoms.

What they are, is downtrodden, kept down by our wealth and our military. Have you any idea how much the West has interfered in just the Middle East? Have you any idea how much strife we have caused furthering outr own agendas? Have you even the faintest conception of what the man on the street sees from the West?

They see our arrogance, our uncaring drive to take what is theirs, our treachery, our own hatreds of them. They see Israel, supported by us however often it opresses them. They see the US' war machine marching through Afghanistan and Iraq and they think 'who's next?'.

They fear, and fear brings hate and hate makes people into the tools of those with cooler heads and greater plans.

The leaders of Terrorism, Bin Laden and his ilk hate the West on whatever grounds they have, but have the minds and the training (often from the CIA) to make others their tools. The suicide bombers, the gunmen, these are all the people who want to fight back. They are given a cause, training and tools then sent on their way as tools themselves.

Terrorism will not end until there are no grievances between peoples. Terrorism will not end until people believe they can represent themselves without violence or the fear of violence. Terrorism will not end until every nation has made itself into a stable society.

We seek to impose stability and democracy and we see it fail every time. The only lasting system is that which a society builds for itself.

I give up. We'll never win against terrorism with the likes of you people soon to become the work-force. Might as well get out the prayer mat.

Allah be praised.

Did you bother to read my post, or are you simply ignoring facts willfully? The only person here who is supporting terrorists is yourself. Your strategy would only make things worse and engender more hate and violence. Do you want to win the battle, or to kill people? Because as long as you are interested only in killing people, we will never see the end of terrorism from fundamentalist muslims.

Here's how I'd fight terrorism:

1. Pull all U.S. troops out of the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia).

2. Cease all support of Israel (and afterwards maintain a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine).

3. Cut off all aid, of all kinds, to Middle Eastern countries. Trade, yes, diplomatic relations, yes, but no aid.

4. Shut down Camp X-Ray.

5. Return all U.S. troops abroad home.

6. Strengthen our border security.

7. Pursue a neutral foreign policy, with diplomatic and commercial relations with as many nations as possible, but no foreign aid, no sending troops into conflicts that are none of our business, etc.


Then, if we just left the rest of the world alone (and by "leave alone," I mean not invading, bullying, subsidizing, or meddling with), the terrorists would have virtually no incentive to attack us again. And if they did, we would use intelligence sources to find those responsible- and only those responsible- and punish them accordingly, without having to have pointless wars (which, I might add, give terrorists all the more reason to hate us).

You see, this entire thread is why I usually don't make posts on this damned section of the forum.

What none of you understand is that, although I actually don't want to do this, we have to fight fire with fire. We, unfortunately, have to strike terror in the terrorists. Not by obliterating entire nations, but by showing our force. We have the technology. We have to show them that a 21st century nation is not going to bow down to a group of people stuck in the 13th century. Also, the terrorists will never negotiate with us. They hate us. They are jealous of us. They see negotiating as a weakness. That's why negotiation with them would fail.
See, this right here is why you should work harder to understand the Enemy. If you honestly believe that people are blowing themselves up because they are jealous...
And you are mistaken. There can be no negotiation with terrorists because that would be to make terror a legitimate political tactic - it is with good reason one says "We don't negotiate with terrorists". Had it been up to them, they would have met at the table and proposed to halt their operations in exchange for... well, were to start: That the US withdraws its support for various middle eastern regimes? Or withdraws its troops from countries like Iraq or Saudi Arabia?
Algebra?
Nooooo! Algebra is evil! :(

You see, this entire thread is why I usually don't make posts on this damned section of the forum.

I guess we should be grateful for that.

You see, this entire thread is why I usually don't make posts on this damned section of the forum.
But... But... if you don't post here regularly... The Terrorists Win! :p

Oh, so I'm the reason that we were attacked on 9/11. Let's all blame John shall we? I'm the most despicable character on Earth.
Well, let me put it this way. In a CS:S match on the CT side, first person you shoot isn't a terrorist, it's the noob.

You see, this entire thread is why I usually don't make posts on this damned section of the forum.

What about this thread? The parts where we disagreed with you and gave our reasons for doing so, or the parts where you suggested mass murder, bordering on genocide, was how we should stop terrorism. fight fire with fire was what you said IMS.

Well, let me put it this way. In a CS:S match on the CT side, first person you shoot isn't a terrorist, it's the noob.

You win the thread.

What none of you understand is that, although I actually don't want to do this, we have to fight fire with fire. We, unfortunately, have to strike terror in the terrorists. Not by obliterating entire nations, but by showing our force. We have the technology. We have to show them that a 21st century nation is not going to bow down to a group of people stuck in the 13th century. Also, the terrorists will never negotiate with us. They hate us. They are jealous of us. They see negotiating as a weakness. That's why negotiation with them would fail.

Your '21st century nation' sounds sooooo 20th. You want 21st century nation? How about one which believes in diplomacy, self-determination and the very futuristic idea of 'war as last resort'.

Also, a very strange thing indeed that, although we can all agree that jealousy must be the prime reason for people to resort to such desperate and self-destructive acts like terrorist attacks, most if not all known revendications accompanying said attacks beared the word 'Israel' in proeminence. Makes you think they all came up with the same excuse.
(one big fat :rolleyes: for the impaired)

I agree with Magdha on all points he made except 2. I was just angry after I saw my fellow countrymen get beheaded. I'm a 14 year old conservative, give me a damn break.

I agree with Magdha on all points he made except 2. I was just angry after I saw my fellow countrymen get beheaded. I'm a 14 year old conservative, give me a damn break.

Wow, they stole your heart that fast?

I see bad shit done to fellow countrymen on a regular basis. Just because it's not done by arabs doesn't make it less bad.

Also, people, stop making fun of me. I understand some of my posts were a little too violence-approving, but I didn't want to be told I'm stupid, I should be shot instead of the terrorists, I'm evil...blah...blah...blah.

Wow, they stole your heart that fast?

I see bad shit done to fellow countrymen on a regular basis. Just because it's not done by arabs doesn't make it less bad.
Wow, I just agreed with you people a little bit and you insult me.

God, I love liberalism :rolleyes:

Also, people, stop making fun of me. I understand some of my posts were a little too violence-approving, but I didn't want to be told I'm stupid, I should be shot instead of the terrorists, I'm evil...blah...blah...blah.

If you don't want to be made fun of, you should be more careful what you say.

If you don't want to be made fun of, you should be more careful what you say.
I know, but I get angry. I enjoy politics, I want to be President for God's sake. But I'll never get in if I act like this.

I know, but I get angry. I enjoy politics, I want to be President for God's sake. But I'll never get in if I act like this.

Well, you have to take personality responsibility.

I know, but I get angry. I enjoy politics, I want to be President for God's sake. But I'll never get in if I act like this.

I didn't think anyone ever aspired to be president at 14.

We should all bookmark this thread, just in case he ever does run for president. So we can say, 'hey I argued with the president'
And sell it to the press :D

I didn't think anyone ever aspired to be president at 14.

We should all bookmark this thread, just in case he ever does run for president. So we can say, 'hey I argued with the president'
And sell it to the press :D
Man, that would be the end of my campaign, lol.

Wow, I just agreed with you people a little bit and you insult me.

God, I love liberalism :rolleyes:

Everyone who points out how stupid your plans are is a liberal? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you still haven't explained what you would do to combat terrorism beyond vague references to 'showing off our power'. If you want to be taken seriously then provide detail.

Everyone who points out how stupid your plans are is a liberal? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you still haven't explained what you would do to combat terrorism beyond vague references to 'showing off our power'. If you want to be taken seriously then provide detail.
:( (Ashamed) Yes...

What I meant was we have technology that could easy wipe Osama Bin Laden off the face of the Earth. The terrorists would get afraid if our missiles killed him, we sense that weakness, and we strike. How's that?

:( (Ashamed) Yes...

What I meant was we have technology that could easy wipe Osama Bin Laden off the face of the Earth. The terrorists would get afraid if our missiles killed him, we sense that weakness, and we strike. How's that?

It's easy to kill a man. It's hard to find a man. You can't just throw bombs around until you're confident that one of them hit him.

Man, that would be the end of my campaign, lol.

Ka-ching, blackmail.

:( (Ashamed) Yes...

What I meant was we have technology that could easy wipe Osama Bin Laden off the face of the Earth. The terrorists would get afraid if our missiles killed him, we sense that weakness, and we strike. How's that?

But to use those missiles would require you to know where he was, which apparently you don't....

I agree with Magdha on all points he made except 2. I was just angry after I saw my fellow countrymen get beheaded. I'm a 14 year old conservative, give me a damn break.
I suspected it was something like that behind all of this. You have to understand that this isn't a problem you should try to solve in anger. (And you probably shouldn't watch those videos in the first place :) )

I suspected it was something like that behind all of this. You have to understand that this isn't a problem you should try to solve in anger. (And you probably shouldn't watch those videos in the first place :) )
Well, you need a little bit of anger to deal with terrorism, right?

Well, you need a little bit of anger to deal with terrorism, right?
Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite the opposite, in fact.
Well, you shouldn't try to cuddle up with it, at least.

I shudder at what the kids would look like.

What I meant was we have technology that could easy wipe Osama Bin Laden off the face of the Earth. The terrorists would get afraid if our missiles killed him, we sense that weakness, and we strike. How's that?
It has been done. In 1996, the Chechen militants' big cheese at the time, Dzhokhar Dudayev, was killed by a Russian missile which homed in on his satellite phone.

10 years and several bloody changes of leadership later, and the conflict is still going strong.

Osama bin Laden is not important to the terrorists. He has no specialist skills, and performs no irreplacable functions. Few report to him, and he will not be aware of much in the way of sensitive operational details. Only a handful of Islamic extremists worldwide have ever met him. If you managed to kill him the way the Russians did with their Islamic militant chief 10 years ago, the soldiers will fight on regardless.

The thing about al Qaeda is, it's not an organisation, it's a brand name. No-one at the top knows what's going on at the bottom, and vice versa. Anyone, anywhere, can come up with their own plot, and stick the al Qaeda label on it.

:( (Ashamed) Yes...

What I meant was we have technology that could easy wipe Osama Bin Laden off the face of the Earth. The terrorists would get afraid if our missiles killed him, we sense that weakness, and we strike. How's that?
It could backfire, you know. By killing him (especially at long range) you risk making him into a martyr and a symbol much more powerful to his movement than when he was alive. The best way would be to capture him.
Well, you need a little bit of anger to deal with terrorism, right?
No. You need to be calm and make cool, rational decisions. You must avoid knee-jerk responses and reacting in anger, in order to avoid making mistakes that will hurt your campaign. A retaliatory strike, for example, could hurt innocents, alienate allies, and have far-reaching consequences that you might not be able to predict as well when acting impulsively in anger.

However, mercy isn't an option at times. Although I may have went a little overboard, we shouldn't just stand down and try to negotiate with people who would never negotiate. Its pointless. They only enjoy bloodshed. Just because I said we should attack doesn't mean I love death and destruction, I just want to see the world free from terrorism. I stand by the idea that we have to fight them, and that negotiation will be a sign of weakness to them.

However, mercy isn't an option at times. Although I may have went a little overboard, we shouldn't just stand down and try to negotiate with people who would never negotiate. Its pointless. They only enjoy bloodshed. Just because I said we should attack doesn't mean I love death and destruction, I just want to see the world free from terrorism. I stand by the idea that we have to fight them, and that negotiation will be a sign of weakness to them.

You still haven't explained how you plan to kill bin Laden if you don't know where he's hiding...

You see, the enemy respects power, and they respect those who use it well. We may have the potential to use our power, but we don't, and they see refusal to use power as a weakness. Once we show power(Through military strength and technology), then they might be willing to negotiate, seeing that we aren't the 90 pound weakling they thought we were.

You still haven't explained how you plan to kill bin Laden if you don't know where he's hiding...
Okay, I admit we can't. But we still have to show our power in some way. If we prove we are a strong nation, they will realize it would be wise to stop attacking us.

Okay, I admit we can't. But we still have to show our power in some way. If we prove we are a strong nation, they will realize it would be wise to stop attacking us.

Still too vague. Please suggest some targets or admit that your whole 'show them we're a strong nation' idea is completely useless.

Okay, I admit we can't. But we still have to show our power in some way. If we prove we are a strong nation, they will realize it would be wise to stop attacking us.

Why not take away all incentives for them to attack us? If we withdrew from the Middle East, ceased supporting Israel, ceased propping up unpopular dictators in the region, and stopped all meddling, aid, etc., they would have absolutely no reason to attack us.

Okay, I admit we can't. But we still have to show our power in some way. If we prove we are a strong nation, they will realize it would be wise to stop attacking us.

It is already clear that America is a strong nation. Obviously that's not enough to stop terrorism.

[edit] I mean you need a different strategy, not that you need to be brutal or anything.

However, mercy isn't an option at times. Although I may have went a little overboard, we shouldn't just stand down and try to negotiate with people who would never negotiate. Its pointless. They only enjoy bloodshed. Just because I said we should attack doesn't mean I love death and destruction, I just want to see the world free from terrorism. I stand by the idea that we have to fight them, and that negotiation will be a sign of weakness to them.
As I said previously, I don't think anybody wants to negotiate with them. Look at Hamas and Israel for an example of how reluctant anybody would be to negotiate with a terrorist organisation.

And with statements like 'They only enjoy bloodshed' you show that you know too little about what motivates someone to kill himself to make a political statement - the world is less black-and-white than you seem to believe.

But we have to fight those who employ terror as a means to reach a political goal, I agree. The question that remains is how one should fight them. I for one believe we should go for the root of the problems, and not just the symptoms. After all, if you kill a suicide bomber before he gets a chance to detonate himself, would that in any way prevent other people from becomming instruments of terror themselves?

Here's how we show our power:

1. Develop alternative energy fuels. Refuse to buy anything that comes from the Middle East. This strangles their economy.

Best part: They lose funds and resources.

2. Start using newly developed weapons. Show them that we do have the power to flatten them to a crisp.

Best part: Strikes a bit of fear in them.

3. Use our increcible satellite and positioning systems to track any electronic usage in suspicious areas.

Best part: We find them

4. Bomb them into submission.

Best part: They are scared, they begin looking for peaceful solutions.

Okay, I admit we can't. But we still have to show our power in some way. If we prove we are a strong nation, they will realize it would be wise to stop attacking us.
It is BECAUSE the US is seen as a strong nation that they attack, and it is BECAUSE the US is seen as a strong nation militarily that they use the tactic of terror.

Why not take away all incentives for them to attack us? If we withdrew from the Middle East, ceased supporting Israel, ceased propping up unpopular dictators in the region, and stopped all meddling, aid, etc., they would have absolutely no reason to attack us.
If we cease supporting Israel, Israel will fall. And again, its not all about Israel. Why are they also fighting India and Indonesia and other such areas. If we withdraw from the Middle East, that means they're closer to their goal, and it reinforces them.

We need to target where their strength lies: oil reserves. They control them, which makes us their puppet. If we develop alternate fuels and bomb their oil sites, it may be unpopular, but it cripples them.

It is BECAUSE the US is seen as a strong nation that they attack, and it is BECAUSE the US is seen as a strong nation militarily that they use the tactic of terror.
We are not as strong as we look. You are only as strong as how much of your potential strength you use. We are not using our strength as much as would be effective.

Here's how we show our power:

1. Develop alternative energy fuels. Refuse to buy anything that comes from the Middle East. This strangles their economy.

Best part: They lose funds and resources.

They'll still have a market for oil in Europe and China, it might hurt them a little but not much. Even if it does hurt the Middle East it'll just increase hatred for America.

2. Start using newly developed weapons. Show them that we do have the power to flatten them to a crisp.

Best part: Strikes a bit of fear in them.

Still dodging the question. Six pages in and you still won't tell us who 'them' are. :rolleyes:

3. Use our increcible satellite and positioning systems to track any electronic usage in suspicious areas.

Best part: We find them

There are a lot of small groups in isolated areas, it might work but the odds are against it. It is was feasible it would already have been done.

4. Bomb them into submission.

Best part: They are scared, they begin looking for peaceful solutions.

Again you deliberately dodge the question, will you please tell us who 'they' are.

They'll still have a market for oil in Europe and China, it might hurt them a little but not much. Even if it does hurt the Middle East it'll just increase hatred for America.



Still dodging the question. Six pages in and you still won't tell us who 'them' are. :rolleyes:



There are a lot of small groups in isolated areas, it might work but the odds are against it. It is was feasible it would already have been done.



Again you deliberately dodge the question, will you please tell us who 'they' are.

They= Islamic terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.)

You realise Russia also has strength, power and technology? And they aren't exactly delicate about using it. They carpeted the cities of Chechnya with 122mm, 152mm and 180mm divisional artillery, MLRS, fuel-air bombs, then went in on the ground with thermobaric RPGs supported by helicopter gunships and fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft, while intelligence service death squads assassinated anyone of value. Wherever a pocket of rebels built up, a minefield was laid and the rebels were driven through it. If a position had to be charged with fixed bayonets, they did that too. If they hid across the border in Georgia, airborne forces would strike in Georgia.

All in all, the Chechens got massacred. Russia lost thousands of troops, but the Chechens lost tens of thousands, with tens of thousands of civilians killed too, and half a million kicked out of the country to make the search easier.

And after more than 13 years of this, no-one has won yet. The terrorists keep striking, and even though only relatively few young amateurs remain alive, they've got balls, recently losing a couple of hundred men in a futile attack on an Interior Ministry base. Maybe back in 1992 a political solution backed by civilian criminal justice, would have worked. Instead we've seen an epic bloodbath and the tail end will last for generations.

Power does not work. America cannot do a more thorough, systematic job of destroying a city than Russia. And we have already had a proof of concept play out. Simple application of force does not work. It didn't work in Chechnya, it will not work in Iraq, or anywhere else.

The way to fight terrorism is not with force, but intelligence. It took Britain 30 years to defeat the Irish terrorists, taking a political approach where appropriate, taking an intelligence-focused approach where appropriate, taking a criminal justice approach where appropriate. At no point were helicopter gunships used to raze a suspect neighbourhood to the ground. Had Britian done that, the other initiatives would have failed and it would have lost.

America will lose if it fights terrorism with military means.

They= Islamic terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.)

And what would your targets be? Terrorists don't tend to sit out in the open with signs above their heads saying 'we are terrorists'.

Here's how we show our power:
1. Develop alternative energy fuels. Refuse to buy anything that comes from the Middle East. This strangles their economy.

Best part: They lose funds and resources.
Worst part: You give many terrorist organisations exactly what they want: Reduced influence (EDIT: US influence, that is) in the Middle East and the power to topple regimes (like Saudi Arabia) and create Islamic nations instead.

2. Start using newly developed weapons. Show them that we do have the power to flatten them to a crisp.

Best part: Strikes a bit of fear in them.
Worst part: Ineffective. One of the reasons why they resort to terrorism today, because they cannot match the military might of the US in a direct confrontation.

3. Use our increcible satellite and positioning systems to track any electronic usage in suspicious areas.

Best part: We find them
Worst part: How do you know who you are looking for?

4. Bomb them into submission.

Best part: They are scared, they begin looking for peaceful solutions.
Worst part: Ineffective. One of the reasons why they resort to terrorism today, because they cannot match the military might of the US in a direct confrontation. They are willing to sacrifice their lives, how do you scare them with bombs?

We are not as strong as we look.
But it is the appearance of strenght that is important in this context.
You are only as strong as how much of your potential strength you use. We are not using our strength as much as would be effective.
Are you kidding? This War On Terror gives new meaning to the term 'Overkill'!

BTW, please don't try to address the role of energy in the War on Terror. It is where my education and work experience lies, and I can tell you now that your suggestions are daft and unworkable.

I admit it! I'm a liberal!

(let's not get into debates over terminology here, suffice to say I believe in personal responsibility and the free market but suitably moderated by a government to protect the vulnerable and regulate the excesses of capitalism. Much as I like the idea of Communism I stick with some level of realism).

Start using newly developed weapons. Show them that we do have the power to flatten them to a crisp.

Right, so we parade our power like a school bully and then expect them to fall in line? One more year of secondary school and I might well have knifed one of the bastards. What's the difference here?

Here's how we show our power:

1. Develop alternative energy fuels. Refuse to buy anything that comes from the Middle East. This strangles their economy.

Best part: They lose funds and resources.

2. Start using newly developed weapons. Show them that we do have the power to flatten them to a crisp.

Best part: Strikes a bit of fear in them.

3. Use our increcible satellite and positioning systems to track any electronic usage in suspicious areas.

Best part: We find them

4. Bomb them into submission.

Best part: They are scared, they begin looking for peaceful solutions.

Who are the ones getting money from oil?

Probably not the terrorists...

Who are the ones that usually get killed when we use bombs?

Probably not the terrorists...

Finding them might be a good idea. Still, how do you know if somebody is a terrorist or not?

Bomb who into submission?

Probably not the terrorists from what I can see.

You see, the enemy respects power, and they respect those who use it well. We may have the potential to use our power, but we don't, and they see refusal to use power as a weakness. Once we show power(Through military strength and technology), then they might be willing to negotiate, seeing that we aren't the 90 pound weakling they thought we were.

They are not going to be intimidated by more bombing any more than the US was intimidated by 9/11/01.

You realise Russia also has strength, power and technology? And they aren't exactly delicate about using it. They carpeted the cities of Chechnya with 122mm, 152mm and 180mm divisional artillery, MLRS, fuel-air bombs, then went in on the ground with thermobaric RPGs supported by helicopter gunships and fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft, while intelligence service death squads assassinated anyone of value. Wherever a pocket of rebels built up, a minefield was laid and the rebels were driven through it. If a position had to be charged with fixed bayonets, they did that too. If they hid across the border in Georgia, airborne forces would strike in Georgia.

All in all, the Chechens got massacred. Russia lost thousands of troops, but the Chechens lost tens of thousands, with tens of thousands of civilians killed too, and half a million kicked out of the country to make the search easier.

And after more than 13 years of this, no-one has won yet. The terrorists keep striking, and even though only relatively few young amateurs remain alive, they've got balls, recently losing a couple of hundred men in a futile attack on an Interior Ministry base. Maybe back in 1992 a political solution backed by civilian criminal justice, would have worked. Instead we've seen an epic bloodbath and the tail end will last for generations.

Power does not work. America cannot do a more thorough, systematic job of destroying a city than Russia. And we have already had a proof of concept play out. Simple application of force does not work. It didn't work in Chechnya, it will not work in Iraq, or anywhere else.

The way to fight terrorism is not with force, but intelligence. It took Britain 30 years to defeat the Irish terrorists, taking a political approach where appropriate, taking an intelligence-focused approach where appropriate, taking a criminal justice approach where appropriate. At no point were helicopter gunships used to raze a suspect neighbourhood to the ground. Had Britian done that, the other initiatives would have failed and it would have lost.

America will lose if it fights terrorism with military means.

This, especially the first two paragraphs, is a brilliant analysis of a 'War on Terror' that uses strong-arm tactics and ultimately fails. Heck, it took us 30 years to stop the NI conflict - well, essentially end it - but its at an end, just a few scattered embers left. If the US stopped its gung-ho uber-technology and invasion of countries tactics and used our more subtle, slower tactics, there might actually be some results.

Here's how I'd fight terrorism:

1. Pull all U.S. troops out of the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia).

2. Cease all support of Israel (and afterwards maintain a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine).

3. Cut off all aid, of all kinds, to Middle Eastern countries. Trade, yes, diplomatic relations, yes, but no aid.

4. Shut down Camp X-Ray.

5. Return all U.S. troops abroad home.

6. Strengthen our border security.

7. Pursue a neutral foreign policy, with diplomatic and commercial relations with as many nations as possible, but no foreign aid, no sending troops into conflicts that are none of our business, etc.


Then, if we just left the rest of the world alone (and by "leave alone," I mean not invading, bullying, subsidizing, or meddling with), the terrorists would have virtually no incentive to attack us again. And if they did, we would use intelligence sources to find those responsible- and only those responsible- and punish them accordingly, without having to have pointless wars (which, I might add, give terrorists all the more reason to hate us).

all good points,and i agree.....however,there will be the same people here,bitching,the horrible u.s. is standing by watching the inevitable horror show that will follow!
damned if we do,and damned if we don't!
not to mention,alot of this nightmare was dumped on our laps by the french and british colonialists...just like vietnam was a ugly chapter..created by the french in indochina.
for some reason,the good ole usa likes to get mired in our european brothers mess,and then take the blame for the ills of the world.
i am all for isolationism...tomorrow if you will.
cut off all foriegn aid,military aid,tsunami relief,world hunger..you name it,cut it all off!
then no one can blame us for meddling in their affairs...everyone is happy...right?
i think so,so if you ask me,i could care less what happens to someone in subsaharan africa(i would certainly feel bad for there suffering and would like to help..as i am a good samaritan by nature)but the reality is...i can feel bad,help...and at the end of the day..i am still an ugly greedy fuckin american.so if by turning a blind eye and cutting off all involvement(aside from trade)and we are no longer the evil empire..and i can go visit a country without being villafied for what every western country in history has done...so be it.

as far as the op...your crazy if you think you will get any sympathy here,i understand your frustration with terrorists,but to hate or attack a whole region or culture is simply idiotic.
the germ(or virus)was planted by the uk years ago,and the people of the middle east have legitamate grievances against the west.
we are guilty as well for abetting regimes that are outright medevil if it suits us.
so my plan for the u.s. if i was king for a day...complete and utter withdrawl from EVERY country in the world....middle east,serbia,africa..you name it....keep the trade lanes open and mind our own biz...we are not connected to any other threats geographically,and as far as mexico and central america goes...build a huge wall,with a mine field and gun turrets...that problem is solved.
people love to say"walls always are defeated"...well most walls,especially the berlin wall were meant to keep people in..not out,except castles...but i venture that with todays technology...a huge armed wall across the border would work.
couple that with our complete disengagement...and i mean complete..with the worlds problems and voila..problem solved.
they will hate us for not helping,but they hate us anyways,at least we will save money and not give people excuses for hating us for getting involved with their affairs.
we have done some good in the world,but i feel the time has come for us to leave everyone to their own devices.sink or swim,etc.
at the least...no one can blame us for their problems..due to our "meddling"

not to mention the money we will save on our military budget and on foriegn aid...woohoo
plus the terrorists get what they want,the u.s. out of their sphere of influence...and when they continue with there insanity..no one can point their crooked fingers at us...though they still will,we can just shrug our collective shoulders and say..we aint there...your gonna hate us for what now...we dont give you money?
the world is almost like a petulent spoiled child...daddy..give us money...but dont bother me...pathetic.
the solution is complete dis engagement..less trade issues.:sniper: