War on Terror means unwinnable, eternal war

[Nashwan]

When they realize the cost of ****ing with this great country is so enormous, then they will not do whatever they want in their little minds. Sure, they might blow up one of our buses. But we just took out the terrorists's home mosque / church, incinerating every single family member of that terrorist. Every single friend of that terrorist is dead. Every single person who might have remotely even known that terrorist is dead. The support base for the terrorists drops to nothing.

You do realise that's what they think they are doing to the US, don't you?

From their point of view, their attacks on America are retaliation for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of US client states.

It's sad that those that most loudly condemn terrorism advocate terrorism against their enemies.

When was the last major terrorist attack that wasn't carried out by muslims??

Tamil Tigers have killed 23 people in 2 bus bombings in Sri Lanka so far this month.

The muslim terrorist believe God has told them to do these things they are doing. They don't do it for political power.

Of course they do it for political power.

Stop for a minute and look at what countries the bulk of Muslim terrorists come from. Most of them are US client states.

They do it because they think anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is sub human.

The problem with that as a theory is that they are attacking mainly the US, not far more liberal countries like Norway, France, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands etc.

They don't seem to have much argument with Japan either.

It's the US they hate, and it's the US who has been the power broker in the Middle East for decades. It's the US who has the most influence over the corrupt governments of the region.

Belive me,we drop a few "realy realy big none nukeular bombs" on the ****ers,we will see murder bombings stop real &@^#in' quick.

How often does the tactic of increased reprisals work? Did it work for the Nazis in Russia?

The simple fact is they hate the US because mostly because they live under corrupt governments that are protected by the US.

[Sundowner]

Originally posted by Chairboy
So, if Genocide is the answer, what exactly is the question?

Them or us?

'jus sayin'

Regards,
Sun

[lasersailor184]

Have you ever wondered why, The U.S., with the ability to destroy the planet 20 times over, has NOT used a Nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because the court of world opinion would be against us, completely and utterly.

Any kind of genocide, or First-strike usage of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons, even by the U.S., would have dire consequenses, indeed.

We could expect the U.N. to turn against us, giving a country like China the Oppurtunity it needs to knock us off the Pedestal and become the #1 superpower on the planet. We could face an economic embargo, which we are ill-prepared to survive. That, at the least, would plunge us into another Great depression. Only this time, With Most of our manufacturing industry gone overseas already anyway, we would face breadlines full of out-of-work IT techs and medical assistants...

No, I haven't wondered.  It's because the leaders have been ******* who won't do what is necessary to win a war.  We haven't really won a war since ww2, so your argument is defunct.

The UN turning against us MEANS NOTHING.  The UN is a pointless powerless organization.  I don't really care what they think, or feel, or cry to their psychiatrists in their little circle jerk of self happiness.


Remember, force, and threat of force is the ultimate power in the world.  Any other power at any level is a derivation of the power of force.


And Nilsen, you're wrong.  Mecca is everything to these people.  With the threat of it's destruction, all those non-terrorist muslims will get the terrorists under control.  If not, we nuke the second holiest muslim site to get our point across.

[lazs2]

I would agree with you karnak... I would also agree that the terrorists can't win either.  

They can, like you say, run a country until it gets "out of hand".   I firmly believe that most muslim countries are out of hand so far as human rights go but... like you, I believe that they got the government they deserve...   when they export terror.. it gets a little sticky tho.

I would agree with tax cuts and freedom to arm yourself.

I don't know what would be enough to go in and fight these poeple who are willing to die in order to make the whole planet a fundamentalist muslim planet even if it means killing anyone who won't convert.

Do we have to be attacked a certain number of times?   Is it enough that such people exist and run countries?  Do we let these countries do whatever they want to their people?  

The whole region is rotten... at this point I just figure that we pick a place and use it as a vacuum to suck in the nutjobs and kill em... to show that they at least can't win.   To have one place in the whole region besides Israel that is free.

lazs

[leitwolf]

Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Dude.
[..]Belive me,we drop a few "realy realy big none nukeular bombs" on the ****ers,we will see murder bombings stop real &@^#in' quick.

And that mutah #$%'er up in iran better watch his oscar,hes about to be neck deep in marines.
[..]

Let's say you would live in Iran and see this message - would you support having nukes or not?

Evil is as evil does.
Just saying.

[Suave]

Nobody will read it but I'll post it here anyway. It's an illuminating interview of the senior cia guy who wasn't allowed to kill Bin Laden for 8 years.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/canada602/interview_scheuer.html

[Maverick]

I disagree with karnaks position that we, the Americans, started this "war on terror".

War is merely an extention of political power by a beligerant entity capable of waging an organized conflict. In this case there have been many instances of the muslim world through it's myriad sects declaring death to America and other entities. Whether they are concerned with the existance of Isreal or the "plundering" of their oil or the "interferrance in muslim activities as the basis of it is immaterial. THEY declared the war and acted on the declaration and did so well before 9/11. The WTC was just the latest large scale single attack they have been able to manage to date.

It becomes encumbant then as the attacked party to do something. Either fold up and conceded defeat submitting ourselves to the demands of sharia "law" and conversion to their religion or do something else to maintain our own identity, country, religions, lifestyle and choices as we see fit to live them.

When faced with an implacable enemy there are 3 choices. Surrender, convince them to change their position, almost certainly by force of arms, or destroy them as a threat to our existence.

Option one is, so far, out of the question. It may change however given the seeming willingness by some members of this country including local govt.'s to embrace islam and grant priveledges to it's followers that other religions do not get in this country.

Option 3 is also out of the question as we are not likely to condone religious genocide (unlike the enemy) unless there is a massive attack by muslims to provoke it or a sudden threat to our survival is imminent.

That leaves option 2 and that seems to be the path we are taking. That also is the most politically acceptable solution as it involves a political as well as military end to the situation. Unless there is a politically acceptable solution that is embraced by the muslim world there will be no total end to the conflict, hence the implacable part of the equation.

Now you can deny, complain or simply gnash your teeth if you want but that's the situation in a nutshell. The question remaining is, what will you decide to do about it?

[Viking]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Sorry, not buying it. The argument completely ignores the difference between fundamental Islamic Fascism and the rest of the Middle East.

Oh, and yes, you CAN make terrorism unacceptable and ineffective. You simply NEVER negotiate, and you NEVER give in. You make the response to acts of terror so swift and so horrible that it becomes obvious to even the most hardened devotee that terror will not achieve their goal, but will instead yield only their destruction.

So your answer is to use terror to suppress terrorism. Somehow I doubt that a US reign of terror will go over well with the rest of the world … and other nations will have to protect themselves against US anti-terror terrorism.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, I haven't wondered.  It's because the leaders have been ******* who won't do what is necessary to win a war.  We haven't really won a war since ww2, so your argument is defunct.

The UN turning against us MEANS NOTHING.  The UN is a pointless powerless organization.  I don't really care what they think, or feel, or cry to their psychiatrists in their little circle jerk of self happiness.


Remember, force, and threat of force is the ultimate power in the world.  Any other power at any level is a derivation of the power of force.


And Nilsen, you're wrong.  Mecca is everything to these people.  With the threat of it's destruction, all those non-terrorist muslims will get the terrorists under control.  If not, we nuke the second holiest muslim site to get our point across.

Lasersailor, many people probably find you stupid. However, I think you just have a problem with realizing the consequences of your actions.

For instance; in this case you propose the threat of, and possibly the execution of, a nuclear strike against a Muslim religious site. What you don’t realize is that there already is a Muslim country with nuclear weapons; and all they need to do to retaliate is to send one brave guy with a rather large backpack to … Mexico. With your porous borders he will be in any US city in no time. And in the foreseeable future there will be more Muslim countries with nuclear arms.

Also your comment on the UN show a complete lack of understanding what the UN is. If the UN “turns against you”, the world “turns against you”. The UN is the mouthpiece of the world’s nations.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nilsen
The harder you fight them the more support they get and the more they grow out of dispare, hate, positive propaganda for their "cause" and lack of goodwill among your own population.
 

Yes, it would be much easier to submit. After all the meaning of "islam" is "submission".

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Suave
Nobody will read it but I'll post it here anyway. It's an illuminating interview of the senior cia guy who wasn't allowed to kill Bin Laden for 8 years.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/canada602/interview_scheuer.html

I've read that before, and I remember his O'Reilly Factor interview too:

Scheuer participated in the following exchange on the FOX News program The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.

[john9001]

that part was left out of the PBS interview, i wonder why.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Viking
Lasersailor, many people probably find you stupid. However, I think you just have a problem with realizing the consequences of your actions.

For instance; in this case you propose the threat of, and possibly the execution of, a nuclear strike against a Muslim religious site. What you don’t realize is that there already is a Muslim country with nuclear weapons; and all they need to do to retaliate is to send one brave guy with a rather large backpack to … Mexico. With your porous borders he will be in any US city in no time. And in the foreseeable future there will be more Muslim countries with nuclear arms.

Also your comment on the UN show a complete lack of understanding what the UN is. If the UN “turns against you”, the world “turns against you”. The UN is the mouthpiece of the world’s nations.

I don't care if people think I'm stupid.  They know I'm right.

And as to Pakistan with nukes?  I'd say let India go ape**** on them.  I know they would love it.

[Engine]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Sure, they might blow up one of our buses.  But we just took out the terrorists's home mosque / church, incinerating every single family member of that terrorist.  Every single friend of that terrorist is dead.  Every single person who might have remotely even known that terrorist is dead.  The support base for the terrorists drops to nothing.

Bombing relatives of combatants is sure to work. It sure made the British surrender in WW2 when London was bombed. Didn't it?

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Engine
Bombing relatives of combatants is sure to work. It sure made the British surrender in WW2 when London was bombed. Didn't it?

But that's different, the British were caucasian and Christian, as a rule.  The prevailing opinions seems to be that the folks Laser and others are advocating the genocide of are barely human.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Chairboy
But that's different, the British were caucasian and Christian, as a rule.  The prevailing opinions seems to be that the folks Laser and others are advocating the genocide of are barely human.

Do you think Laser's opinon would be any different if it were the British practicing global terrorism? I don't think it would make any difference to him or many other people who believe in trying to win this war. If you're going to debate his ideas that's one thing. If all you're trying to do with this statement is to label him a racist. That might win you a few brownie points with the I hate conservatives crowd. However it has little to do with presenting a good arguement. It's a cheap tactic period.