Protesting Air Strikes
-
The beer ain't all that bad. :)
I don't drink beer. :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Stan, you're wasting your time. The only thing of any significance to come out of Denmark are chicks with big tits, and fancy pastries. I hear they're really good friends with the French, too. Rhode came up with other significant things - Lego and C++. I think the list is now complete. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -- modified at 5:59 Monday 16th January, 2006
Funny you should say that, seeing as Denmark is one of the few other countries ouside the US and the UK with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan, and likely still sending fresh troops to both locations. Also funny seeing as the danish government backed the US actions in Iraq, and have had terrorist threats towards us for doing so as well. Perhaps the general population doesn't support the actions, and increasing discontent towards it, however, the government in control still does support the US - although they face increasingly preassure due to the actions concerning general disregard for the human rights they so desperately try to portray as wanting to save. Especially after the no-WMD facade, tortures, and bombing of civilians because the "intelligence" agencies sais there might be something there. Many many reports are of terrorists hiding in Saudi Arabia, however - I don't see news of Airstrikes killing off civlians there. Egypt? Come on and pull your head out for once and actually start thinking. Terrorisme is a terrible thing - however - after the Cold War this is how warfare is moving towards. Much should indeed be done to limit it, however, bombing random civlians will not limit it - on the contrary. Such arronge and disregard for other human beings will only add to it. You don't win a war on terrorisme by killing off or alianating your allies. Especially when terrorisme is withouth borders in a global world. No wonder the general population sees the US as arrogant with morons (like some does here) expressing as if they actually knew something of the world, other then the propaganda which would make even the strongest dictatorships jealous. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
Added to the list. Thanks. :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
I've always been pro-US. Big pro. But their behaviour the last couple of years fills me with disgust. They keep killing innocent people without ever getting the teorrists (which I agree should be captured). The US mentality that they can just bomb whom ever where ever is a true danger to peace. I fear this American outragoues behaviour will keep on until someone stands up to them big time. I'm outraged at the American disdain for non-US life. They are sick. Almost as sick as the fundamental muslim terrorists. They are not there yet, but man they are on their way. I had hoped better from that nation. Boy was I wrong.
I so strongly agree. To begin with I was even in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and supported removing Saddam, although I felt the WMD argument was hard to belive - I saw it as the "greater good". Especially post 9/11. I supported the removal of Taliban in Afganistan, and still do. However, fundamentalisme in all forms are horrible whether it be a muslim terrorist group or US government bombing civilians because they *think* there might be some bad guy there. And if it was so black and white as some people here like to portray - then encourage your government to start bombing in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well - after all, there are many reports of terrorists in these countries - come on please.... Or go after the WMD in North Korea or invade Iran as well with their nuclear project. Hippocrites. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
I agree that Pakistan has serious terrorist problems and needs to sort them out if it wants any leg to stand on in the international world. But the U.S. does have some responsibility, you cannot say it is not your fault at all. Your intel was wrong, again, and innocent people died. Show some sympathy, admit the mistake and move on. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Show some sympathy, admit the mistake and move on.
No, I won't do that. The Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us. Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him. And he, one would assume, is a person of education and intelligence. That part is not our fault at all, and the kind of mistakes made in this instance are inevitable. I have no problem admiting the mistakes the US has made. But I also do not believe in making excuses for the people of the Islamic world. They have a responsibility which they are making no effort at all to fulfil. They are a freer, healthier, more independent people today than they have ever been due primarily to the existence of the US. For all of our mistakes, we have done far more good than harm around the world, including the middle east. It seems we might be forgiven for being a bit less than perfect from time to time. If the first priority of the US is to never make any one angry, than we will simply never be able to defend ourselves. Frankly, I think Pakistan should have been either invaded or largely carpet bombed long ago. In the long run, I see no other way to deal successfully with terrorism than taking out all of its bases of support by direct, brute force. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Show some sympathy, admit the mistake and move on.
No, I won't do that. The Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us. Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him. And he, one would assume, is a person of education and intelligence. That part is not our fault at all, and the kind of mistakes made in this instance are inevitable. I have no problem admiting the mistakes the US has made. But I also do not believe in making excuses for the people of the Islamic world. They have a responsibility which they are making no effort at all to fulfil. They are a freer, healthier, more independent people today than they have ever been due primarily to the existence of the US. For all of our mistakes, we have done far more good than harm around the world, including the middle east. It seems we might be forgiven for being a bit less than perfect from time to time. If the first priority of the US is to never make any one angry, than we will simply never be able to defend ourselves. Frankly, I think Pakistan should have been either invaded or largely carpet bombed long ago. In the long run, I see no other way to deal successfully with terrorism than taking out all of its bases of support by direct, brute force. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
I don't think even America can afford that. Inevitably America will have to be a world spanning empire. Giving Iraq back to the Iraqis is not going to stamp out America threatening terrorism. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the f*** are you talking about? The terrorists are living in Adnan's country
are you making a claim that there are terrorists in PAKISTAN or in any muslim country only?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is their responsibility to do something about it.
NO,we had been leading a really Fcuking Live for long time before invasion of Afghanistan by US and General`s decision to support Bush govt,you guys had really made many locals` life like hell and there is NO doubt about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When countries like Pakistan demonstrate they have the ability to stop people living in their country from going on international murder sprees.
Alqeda is a myth same goes for Osama and Co,today Bush is in office coz of Osama ,one shouldn`t forget appearance of Osama before election on tv which aided bush to raise his graph during election campaign, you guys would never get Osama or any of like minded people who are called "Terrorists* by your govt. I challange you stan,even if your country attack on Pakistan or all suspected countries,you will never get the guy and what could be reasons behind it? 1)there was no alqaeda on earth,some terrorists orginzation on paper 2)Osama has dead or has set his invisible mode 3)umm maybe protected by country who wants to use him for fulfilling his own intrests? ;) and there is a word for such people , Traitor,like we had traitor in pasts in india like Meer Jafar and Meer Sadiq who helped Brits to destroy Indian kings of that time, for me Osama or co is not a mujahid but a traitor,in past,I was also thrilled that this osma had got balls to reply US,but as the time passed and i found casualties in afghanistan and iraq,i realized that this is something else. why its like that every other afghanis is getting killed but not two persons like oSama and Aiman Zaharwi?they are NOT EVEN LOCALS like afghanis,how come they are able to save themselves,i read in papers that blah blah of osama was killed,blah blah guard got killed but OSama saved,latest i found that His driver was captured or killed but there was no OSama.. pakistan itself has handled many people to US and frankly speaking,some of them were not terrorists at all,i do remember the story of a doctor who was captured by pakistani officials just coz he used to treat people in afghanistan including talibans,whi
I've never felt it was a good idea to make terrorism an issue about a handful of individuals such as Osama. As we saw again in yet another incident, it is virtually impossible to track them down over such vast regions where they enjoy so much support. Yet, while I do not entirely agree with every decision my government makes, I nonetheless support it. For all of its many mistakes, the US has always been a force for good in the world. We still are. I certainly do not believe that President Bush is the best leader we could have wished for to manage this situtation. But regardless of who held that office now, these kinds of mistakes would still be occuring. There is simply no way to avoid them. The future of the Islamic world is entirely up to the people of Islam. But the US is simple no longer going to tolerate the notion that your civilization can blithfully disregard the existence of mass murderers, that it feels free to generate them and spew them around the world. We will deal with that threat in what ever manner we deem most appropriate. The very last thing we should concern ourselves with is who we are making angry and why. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 7:24 Monday 16th January, 2006
-
peterchen wrote:
Because Pakistan wouldn't have let them in? Just guessing.
I don't think that is a reason. The Pak Prez goes out of his way to make Bush happy! Whatever was done was probably done with the full knowledge of the Pak Govt. Regards, Nish
Pakistan will not let US troops in the country. He will not allow us to folow the terrorists into his country. This has been stated by him many times over.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Show some sympathy, admit the mistake and move on.
No, I won't do that. The Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us. Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him. And he, one would assume, is a person of education and intelligence. That part is not our fault at all, and the kind of mistakes made in this instance are inevitable. I have no problem admiting the mistakes the US has made. But I also do not believe in making excuses for the people of the Islamic world. They have a responsibility which they are making no effort at all to fulfil. They are a freer, healthier, more independent people today than they have ever been due primarily to the existence of the US. For all of our mistakes, we have done far more good than harm around the world, including the middle east. It seems we might be forgiven for being a bit less than perfect from time to time. If the first priority of the US is to never make any one angry, than we will simply never be able to defend ourselves. Frankly, I think Pakistan should have been either invaded or largely carpet bombed long ago. In the long run, I see no other way to deal successfully with terrorism than taking out all of its bases of support by direct, brute force. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
he Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us.
Your apparent lack of understanding of the real world is staggering. Problem is that such behaviour (bombing houses where terrorists supposedly hang out) will only spark even more resentment in the affected areas, making it further possible for terrorisme to grow and spread. You can't bomb every house you think hold terrorists and expect people getting hit to be gratefull and thank you for it. It turns into a circle of revenge instead. Terrorisme needs to be stopped indeed, but doing so by breading more terrorisme is not really the way to go forth. Terrorists doesn't run around in uniforms bearing a lable "Terrorist", thus you can't use the conventioal military strategy to target them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him.
Pot, meet Kettle. Fundamentalisme in all forms is horrendous. It shows nothing but a lack of understanding of the world and personal bias. "I'll take clueless for 1.000,- Alex." --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
I don't think even America can afford that. Inevitably America will have to be a world spanning empire. Giving Iraq back to the Iraqis is not going to stamp out America threatening terrorism. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
And I don't think we can afford not to. I really don't think most people have thought this issue through beyond the usual hackneyed western liberal platitudes. Could the US end terrorism by taking some other less violent approach? Could we demonstrate our willingness to appease the justifiable anger the seeths within Islam at how they have been treated? Could we force Israel to yield land to the Palestiians? Could we force the house of Saud, and other Islamic governments, to be more sympathetic to their own people's desires and needs? Could we use our tremendous wealth and power to build up the infrastructure of the middle east and Africa, educate their masses, provide jobs, hope and opportunity? Liberate them and set them free from the heavy tyrannical yoke of international corporate capitalism. To release the latent flood tide of a moderate, mainstream muslim movement towards enlightment, peace, and harmony and embrace all the world's peoples as one, equal and with a common set of socially responsible values? The answer to all of those question is no. We can't. The middle east is living proof that the left in the west is correct. It is a nightmare scenario of precisely what happens when religious fundamentalism is allowed to spiral out of control and fester and grow. It cannot be appeased or bought off. Anything you do to contend with it is merely going to cause it to grow and strengthen. At this point the only possible way to contend with it is to kill it. No matter how much no one in the west wishes to hear that, we have no choice but to kill the Islmaic world's ability to physically produce terrorism. If that means invasion, than we invade, if that means bombing than we bomb, if that means isolation than we isolate, if that means ripping the oil from their grasp than we do so. We do whatever it takes to end it on our own terms with no regard at all to their own sentiments. To show even the slightest respect to their own values and their culture and religion will merely serve to strengthen them. Otherwise, this war will never end, it will go on and on, and we will erect ever thicker and more liberty denying barriers against it until we have in fact ceased to be what ever it is we once were. You end it by ending it as swiftly and violently as necessary. But you put an end to it. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itsel
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
he Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us.
Your apparent lack of understanding of the real world is staggering. Problem is that such behaviour (bombing houses where terrorists supposedly hang out) will only spark even more resentment in the affected areas, making it further possible for terrorisme to grow and spread. You can't bomb every house you think hold terrorists and expect people getting hit to be gratefull and thank you for it. It turns into a circle of revenge instead. Terrorisme needs to be stopped indeed, but doing so by breading more terrorisme is not really the way to go forth. Terrorists doesn't run around in uniforms bearing a lable "Terrorist", thus you can't use the conventioal military strategy to target them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him.
Pot, meet Kettle. Fundamentalisme in all forms is horrendous. It shows nothing but a lack of understanding of the world and personal bias. "I'll take clueless for 1.000,- Alex." --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Alsvha wrote:
but doing so by breading more terrorisme
Well, fine, I am wide open to suggestions. How do you deal with the problem without breeding more terrorists? How would you handle it? "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alsvha wrote:
but doing so by breading more terrorisme
Well, fine, I am wide open to suggestions. How do you deal with the problem without breeding more terrorists? How would you handle it? "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Air strikes are faster, and with the weapns they use, they are much more capable of the benefit of a surprise visit. The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building. And for the clueless out there, everyone in that country knows that if they harbor terrorists, they may share the same inevitable fate as said terrorists. So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How would you handle it?
Stan, you can not hope to get an answer to this question. Contructive opinions/ideas are not part of the make-up of this board.
Oh, I am all to well aware of that. Beyond the inane platitudes these people can only tell us what we are not supposed to do, but nothing as to what we are supposed to do. The endless refrain of "they don't wear uniforms" is so monotonous. Too bad Hitler didn't think of that. Apparently, if he has just dressed all those storm troopers up as Berlin beer miesters and Alpine ski instructors Denmark would have been toast. Nothing could have been done to save them or the rest of Europe. And the "you're only making them angrier and breeding more terrorism" is so brain dead that it trully makes me question the rationality of those who use it. How carefully would we have to tread to ensure that we never piss off people who actually believe they get to deflower virgins in paradise as a reward for mass murder? The only thing that is more insane then that is the notion that you can effectively deal with any of it in a rationale way. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alsvha wrote:
but doing so by breading more terrorisme
Well, fine, I am wide open to suggestions. How do you deal with the problem without breeding more terrorists? How would you handle it? "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Alsvha wrote:
Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries.
A lot of words, but the only thing that I could pull from it is that you think that we should sit down and talk to the terrorists. First, who should we talk to? Second, what should we concede?
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Alsvha wrote:
Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries.
You have to be kidding me... Is that why Gaza is now overrun with Hammas bring in arms from Egypt? Giving up Gaza has only made it easier for terrorists to sumggle arms in. They have no desire for peace until Israel is destroyed. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Adnan Siddiqi wrote: don`t try to be clever ass wid me while you can`t..
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Now that you told us what these people, who have a lot more information than you, are doing wrong. Please give us your answer of what the world should do to capture and kill the terrorist that would do so many innocent people harm. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Adnan Siddiqi wrote: don`t try to be clever ass wid me while you can`t..
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Thats what I thought.
Alsvha wrote:
no quick solution to this problem
Especially if you don't have any solutions to apply. You merely redefine the problem. We all know what the problem is and I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that the behavior of my own country has contributed to it. But the problem exists regardless of what caused it. I would be more than happy to work with a less violent solution if you had one to offer. Diplomacy is a wonderful idea but who exactly do you do it with? The unidentifiable terrorists? Unfortunantly, I sort of like most of what my country and society is. I am only so willing to start tossing major parts of it overboard to try to ease an anger that doesn't appear to be even remotely rooted in a sane view of reality.
Alsvha wrote:
How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them?
That is the entire point. If you can't identify them, you have to trace them to a common source from where they are being produced. There are easily identifiable commonalites that they collectively share. And that is where you confront them. If Islam is that common base, and it is, that is where you deal with them. If you have some clue as to how to do that in a peaceful, dimplomatic way, then by all means, lets hear it. For my part, I am convinced that you must get in the very face of Islam and leave no doubt in their collective mind that you are precisely as fiercely convicted to your values as they are to theirs that you will track their terrorist element to the very heart of its source and kill it where it is being born. You leave the choice of peace vs. war to them. Let them decide. The Islamic world could end this terrorism tomorrow if it really wished to. If there is anything a lunatic respects its a bigger, meaner lunatic. To be under attack by swarms of Islamic fundamentalists and to utterly ignore that a major portion of the human population, and government, is committed to that very same theological orientation, to completely refuse to connect that line, to characterize any effort to hold the one responsible for the other as racism and any effort to compel change by means of force as genocide is sheer, blantant insanity - a form of insanity as profound as that of the terrorists themselves.
Alsvha wrote:
There are also with all given likelyhood terrorists or/and peop
-
Air strikes are faster, and with the weapns they use, they are much more capable of the benefit of a surprise visit. The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building. And for the clueless out there, everyone in that country knows that if they harbor terrorists, they may share the same inevitable fate as said terrorists. So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building.
Reminds me of the WMDs they "knew" were in Iraq. History shows us to be careful when citing "reasonable intelligence". Steve
