Religious answer to terrorist problem

[BWare 0]

I was just kidding :wink:

[GeneralZ 0]

i know the answer to terrorist problem:

 

bomb the sh*t out of them until they wish they were never live.

 

a 2000 lb bomb leaves a huge crater.......military.com has a video of 1 being dropped and the aftermath.....thats a freaking huge crater.......

 

we bomb, kill them, torture them, burn their bodies to lure out more of them, use white phosphorous to burn them out and kill them all

 

perfect solution. kill them all

[BWare 0]

WHOOOAH! :shock:

 

I agree with your premise dude, but... that's a bit overzealous for my taste :lol:

[Acerz492 1]

>_> Here we go again. :roll:

[General Leang 0]

i know the answer to terrorist problem:

 

bomb the sh*t out of them until they wish they were never live.

 

a 2000 lb bomb leaves a huge crater.......military.com has a video of 1 being dropped and the aftermath.....thats a freaking huge crater.......

 

we bomb, kill them, torture them, burn their bodies to lure out more of them, use white phosphorous to burn them out and kill them all

 

perfect solution. kill them all

 

Well yes, that would kill off a number of terrorists. Not to mention make America or whoever were to launch such an attack monsters unlike any the world has ever seen, even by Nazi standereds, create a new wave of terrorism and cast the entire world against the perpetrators of such a bombing.

[Acerz492 1]

Well yes, that would kill off a number of terrorists. Not to mention make America or whoever were to launch such an attack monsters unlike any the world has ever seen, even by Nazi standereds, create a new wave of terrorism and cast the entire world against the perpetrators of such a bombing.

 

Exactly. Fighting fire with fire isn't the answer. :roll:

[GeneralZ 0]

fighting fire with fire can work.

 

people burn patches of land surrounding their lands to if there is a fire, the fire cant cross the burned patch, if we burn them to hell, there wont be anything left. it wont be that cruel, we'll try leave innocents alone.

 

more like insurgents are hiding and training in some mountains.... then bombing the mountain and leveling it flat. kill them all.

 

we shoulda completley flattened tora bora when osama and his loons were there. the innocent people are in the cities or other places, not hiding in the caves. therfore only terrorists get hurt.... i mean killed

[F15pilotX 4]

Umm, yeah, kill them, but don't torture them Ever heard of the Geneva Convention :wink:

[BWare 0]

...I'm against torture in its strictest sense, but ununiformed terrorists fighting under no nation's flag are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It does NOT apply to them :wink:

[Acerz492 1]

fighting fire with fire can work.

 

people burn patches of land surrounding their lands to if there is a fire, the fire cant cross the burned patch, if we burn them to hell, there wont be anything left. it wont be that cruel, we'll try leave innocents alone.

 

That's not the way I meant it. :roll:

 

more like insurgents are hiding and training in some mountains.... then bombing the mountain and leveling it flat. kill them all.

 

A waste of munitions, therefore a waste of money. :roll: There are easier ways.

 

It would've been much easier for the U.S. if they just grabbed a squad of Special Ops. or something, dropped 'em in that area, and started from there. No big explosions, no flattening of cities/mountains, no escaped Osama. :roll:

 

An Act of Terrorism followed up by failed displays of force (failed in the sense that the U.S. have failed to find, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden) shows a weakness that will be exploited.

 

...I'm against torture in its strictest sense, but ununiformed terrorists fighting under no nation's flag are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It does NOT apply to them. :wink:

 

Agreed. They are monsters. They deserve whatever physical harm will eventually come their way.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

@ GeneralZ-Turkey getting to your head lately ?

 

@ BWare-torture = bad, unless you get something goodo ut of it, like Bin Laden's address :wink:

 

@ Acerz-even spec ops would have taken a long time to go cave to cave looking for Osama, plenty of time for him to escape. And I dont see nayone else out there looking for him. so boo ya :wink:

[BWare 0]

And I dont see nayone else out there looking for him. so boo ya :wink:

Haha, well said Cygnus :lol:

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Torture is an ineffective means of getting the truth. People will say anything to make you stop. <_<

[Mr_Lee_ 0]

Prison is an ineffective means of stopping criminals from reoffending but its still common practice for people to be put in prison if they are 'dangerous'.

[BWare 0]

So what do you propose??

 

Also, the statistics are against your analysis there... Repeat offenders are very common, and many people are in fact a danger to society.

[Waraddict 0]

Honestly I can't believe how retarded the US Government has been in taking care of Osama, the guy had a terrorist network in Afghanistan, he could move anywhere, in anytime, without anyone knowing, send a big bloody army in there and he would be gone long before anyone could get near him. War and Terrorism are two completely different planes of fighting, I wouldn't exactly say one couldn't effect the other but Terrorism IS specifically designed to take on a force which vastly out numbers their fire power, Armies are the LAST thing you send against Terrorists, Terrorist forces have no bases, no root, its possible you could make a host country mostly inhospitable to terrorists through armies (very rarely though) but they can just go somewhere else, to defeat terrorists you need two things, intelligence and covert operations, the US Government FAILED in both, and that's a disturbing thought considering their the world superpower.

 

Not only that, but they decided to remove a dictator while they were on this supposed 'War on Terrorism', good intentions, yes, but they should not be preoccupied with something as vast as removing the government of a country then helping to set up a new one when trying to repremand a dangerous terrorist who gets further and further out of grasp each day.

 

The conclusion seems to me that the USA is simply unfamiliar with terrorism and is applying the tactics that it only knows of in vain.

[General Leang 0]

I would advocate torture if it was the only way to be able to get the information you need to save lives, but there are more effective ways of finding out what they know.

 

For example you could use an agent and convince, say, a terrorist suspect that they work for Al Qaeda, when in fact they really work to fight terrorism. With Al Qaeda however this is particularly challenging, as people have to have been proving themselves for years before they begin to trust them.

 

Another is one the news media uses, in feeding their best guess of, say, a planned attack, and try and goad the target into correcting any mistakes on the, in this example, reporter's behalf.

 

You could also try and turn someone from one side to another, so that they work for you. Again this would be very difficult with people such as Al Qaeda.

 

I do not see what is wrong with this tactic, although there would be many that would. Slip the target some sodium pentathol or some other sleeping or truth agent and then extract the information from them.

 

@ waraddict: I think you are spot on in what you say. Case in point: How effective are you playing Generals with Colonel Burton and a few Pathfinders, or Jarmen Kell and a sneak attack? Okay, now answer how you fair with a massive rush your enemy can see coming. War in the traditional sense is not how you fight against terrorism. I believe the 10th Mountain Infantry, Army Rangers and Special Forces Operations Detachment Delta faced far greater success fighting the mulishas in Somalia that the grunts with tanks and planes that were ambushed in Fallujah and over Iraq.

 

As well as that, invading Iraq was a mistake. Look at what it has done to the image of America. Look at where the war on terrorism is because of it. And besides which, the attack was not in retalliation to a terrorist act such as it was with Afghanistan, the Iraqi people I cannot deny wanted and needed help, but, and in all fairness this would largely be due to Saddam Hussein, they did not ask for it, and the premise of the war is largely believed to be a lie.

 

Sadley Bush seems to become more and more distracted from the war on terror.

 

[BWare 0]

I think you're both pretty off base there. Removing a dangerous dictator like Saddam and his rogue state is good for everyone, and very, very bad for the terrorists. Why do you think they're fighting us so hard over there? Keep in mind that the resistance is not an insurgency. Most of the suicide bombers come from across the border. Obviously the terrorists aren't too keen on our removal of a sympathetic state. If it really was a pointless diversion from the war on terror, there would be no such resistance! They'd be happy about it. Obviously we're stepping on nerves... AND ISN'T THAT THE POINT?? The war is happening, and I sure as hell prefer Iraq to my backyard.

[Waraddict 0]

I think you're both pretty off base there. Removing a dangerous dictator like Saddam and his rogue state is good for everyone, and very, very bad for the terrorists. Why do you think they're fighting us so hard over there? Keep in mind that the resistance is not an insurgency. Most of the suicide bombers come from across the border. Obviously the terrorists aren't too keen on our removal of a sympathetic state. If it really was a pointless diversion from the war on terror, there would be no such resistance! They'd be happy about it. Obviously we're stepping on nerves... AND ISN'T THAT THE POINT?? The war is happening, and I sure as hell prefer Iraq to my backyard.

 

Bware, that is a VERY flawed argument unfortunately, just because Saddam and Terrorism are both enemies of democracy does not mean both worked together, Saddam's Iraq was a secular Iraq, the terrorists currently in Iraq are pro-Islamic State, Saddam was not sympathetic to them and the US are not stepping on nerves, the terrorists in Iraq are the result of pro-Islamic Statism trying to take advantage of the removal of Saddam. Don't try to argue those facts, any source which has led you to believe otherwise is clearly propaganda.

 

I fear for the world when the USA is clearly applying the wrong tactic and creating nothing but more terrorism as a result. It seems to me the US Government is more interested in retaining a climate of fear of terrorism then defeating it.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I fear for the world when the USA is clearly applying the wrong tactic and creating nothing but more terrorism as a result. It seems to me the US Government is more interested in retaining a climate of fear of terrorism then defeating it.

F*ckin-a brother. Finally, another person that sees the goddamn truth.

[BWare 0]

Geez Fenring. That was really well said... you have a real mastery of four letter words. It speaks to your intelligence :roll:

 

Anyways, as I said earlier, I believe that Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror. It is by no means a diversion. If it were... like I said earlier... we wouldn't be facing such harsh opposition (though when you think about it- 2,000 deaths in several years with 140,000 + soldiers on the ground, it's not a blood bath). If you believe that this is so far off balance (I don't see how liberating 25,000,000 people and ending an oppressive and TERRORIST sympathetic regime is such a bad thing :roll:), then what the hell do you propose?? Afghanistan is under control, Osama, while not captured (possibly dead), is now all but powerless and constantly on the run, and when was the last terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? Yeah, we're really screwing up :roll:.

 

And about Saddam and his sympathy for terrorism... a common enemy makes friends. You should know this. History has taught us this lesson a thousand times over. While anti-west for differing reasons, the Islamo-fascists and Saddam were both Muslim, both hated America, and are both known to cause unbelievable levels of violent murder. How can you say that there was no collaboration of any kind? It's a small world, and groups like this are remarkably good at taking advantage of available resources.

 

Taking out Iraq's rogue regime (with access to WMDs- you know it if you have half a brain in your head :roll:) was in fact a GOOD thing. Why people like you can't see that... it's really beyond me.

[Mr_Lee_ 0]

Bware, that is a VERY flawed argument unfortunately, just because Saddam and Terrorism are both enemies of democracy does not mean both worked together, Saddam's Iraq was a secular Iraq, the terrorists currently in Iraq are pro-Islamic State, Saddam was not sympathetic to them and the US are not stepping on nerves, the terrorists in Iraq are the result of pro-Islamic Statism trying to take advantage of the removal of Saddam. Don't try to argue those facts, any source which has led you to believe otherwise is clearly propaganda.

 

Waraddict, have you ever heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think this applies doubly so to the terrorists and the Iraqi regime. The US was probably just trying to stop a pair of enemies from reaching common conclusions and banding together to form a much more united front.

 

The US war on terrorism, as BWare has described, is something aking to a story/poem I read a while back. It was written about the Nazi's, but you'll see its relevance here.

 

"When they arrested the Communists, I, I was no Communist, I did nothing. When they busted the unions, I, I was no unionist, I did nothing. When they got the Jews, I – I am a Protestant… I didn’t protest. When they came for me, I looked for help. There was nobody left, to help me…."

[General Leang 0]

What about Saudi Arabia? What about North Korea, who not only directly threatened America with nuclear weapons they seemed to be able to build such weapons? I stand by my belief that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should have been eliminated. America should have finished the job before seeking to colonise Mars or 'go after Iraq's oil' as the human shields over there would say.

 

Saddam, sure, he was a bad man who needed disposing, but I think the claims of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism have been proven false, which in many people's eyes make America out to be liars. They go the UN who say not to attack and then attack anyway, this makes them look like a rogue state the same Iraq is meant to be. If Bush wanted to take out Saddam, why not just have him assassinated and then swoop in to bring democracy? Would this not have worked just as well, if not better?

[BWare 0]

You are being very naive Leang...... First of all, it is illegal for us to assassinate heads of state. I don't personally agree with this, but it is our policy. Secondly, even if Saddam WERE eliminated, do you really think Iraq would be ready for democracy?? His sons were far worse than even he was. REGIME change was necessary, and the way we did it was really the only reasonoble way. You site other countries that pose potential threats (you left out Iran... probably the biggest one), and frankly I agree with you that they need to be dealt with as well. However, in the case of North Korea, we're still in the diplomatic stage. I hope and pray that it does not come down to violence there, but it very well may! We have to be ready to do what is necessary, even though it isn't as easy as some people (like you) would like. Iraq was a clear danger, and diplomacy had absolutely failed.

 

It's interesting that you call the US a rogue state (more or less) for acting without the consent of the UN. Of course, the UN is impartial, fair, and above all uncorrupted, right? How about you do a little research into the Oil for Food scandal... you know, the biggest scandal (monetarily) in HISTORY. Guess who blocked UN approval? Wow! It just happens to be the same countries that benefited from the scandal! Now that is an incredible coincidence.

 

Bottom line: Iraq was a threat, diplomacy had failed, and, in a post 9/11 world, we had to do what was necessary to back up all those pointless resolutions and protect our own national security.

[Acerz492 1]

Bware, that is a VERY flawed argument unfortunately, just because Saddam and Terrorism are both enemies of democracy does not mean both worked together, Saddam's Iraq was a secular Iraq, the terrorists currently in Iraq are pro-Islamic State, Saddam was not sympathetic to them and the US are not stepping on nerves, the terrorists in Iraq are the result of pro-Islamic Statism trying to take advantage of the removal of Saddam. Don't try to argue those facts, any source which has led you to believe otherwise is clearly propaganda.

 

Waraddict, have you ever heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think this applies doubly so to the terrorists and the Iraqi regime. The US was probably just trying to stop a pair of enemies from reaching common conclusions and banding together to form a much more united front.

 

They still wouldn't join forces Lee. The US were paranoid of that happening, however the truth is, like Waraddict has already stated, they would never, EVER join forces. :roll:

 

Please, you guys, stop thinking this way. :roll:

 

Anyways, as I said earlier, I believe that Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror. It is by no means a diversion. If it were... like I said earlier... we wouldn't be facing such harsh opposition (though when you think about it- 2,000 deaths in several years with 140,000 + soldiers on the ground, it's not a blood bath).

 

If you believe that this is so far off balance (I don't see how liberating 25,000,000 people and ending an oppressive and TERRORIST sympathetic regime is such a bad thing :roll:), then what the hell do you propose??

 

The reason why the fighting is still contiuning over in Iraq? Because while most of the people were glad of Saddam's removal, there are still some who support Saddam. :roll: Really, I thought it was obvious. They are not terrorists, although we label them as such because they resort to terrorist tactics. Hence why they are called Insurgents, not terrorists. I can't believe some people seem to think of them as one and the same.

 

Saddam had to be removed. Many people accept that. But it was the way in which it was done (the claiming of WMD's, of which there were none, for example) that were getting on people's nerves. I've already pointed this out to you BWare, several times. For the record, "Terrorist Sympathetic" does not mean "Supply the Terrorists with munitions and form an alliance with them." This, again, has been mentioned before. :roll:

 

Afghanistan is under control, Osama, while not captured (possibly dead), is now all but powerless and constantly on the run, and when was the last terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? Yeah, we're really screwing up. :roll:

 

I'm sorry dude, but by not having Osama bin Laden in custody and on the run is a big screw up. He may be powerless now, but, what's stopping him using his story of escape from the most powerful military force in the world to gather together another terrorist group, plus his loyal followers from the remenants of Al Qaeda?

 

Makes you think, dosen't it?

 

Bottom line: Iraq was a threat, diplomacy had failed, and, in a post 9/11 world, we had to do what was necessary to back up all those pointless resolutions and protect our own national security.

 

That's something Dubyah could've said in place of the WMD gibberish. :roll: