Stephe are you going to answer my questions and requests for cites?
In short, are you going ot engege in debate? Or is this just going to become a long-winded rambling rant that covers terrorism, Islam, Democrat failings and a dozen other unrelated topics with no pretense at reasoned argument, informed opinion and and coherent thought?
Stephe96, could you cut out the juvenile bullshit for a while?
Not only does it hurt whatever case you may be trying to make, but it encourages other posters to respond in kind.
I did not give him a pass, and in your changing the subject and making up shit maneuver case, I am only happy to point at how big the hole you are digging yourself in is getting.
What the fuck are you talking about? I acknowleded it as “apocryphal” and “legend”. Then I posit that I’d think it would be a good idea in reality, today, and why. So, instead of writing off anything that shows any balls with everything you hate about the right, why don’t you address why you DON’T think it would be a good idea?
Waht’s the matter, is your mind too occupiedstill trying to figure out how a guy who served in the National Guard beat a decorated war hero. Let me help you. He faked his medals. Not only that, he wasn’t as good a student. And, oh yeah, Kerry’s a flip-floppig pompous ass.
Now we can play this childish game or you can stick to the actaul debate.
And he said it was instructive that you’re getting ideas from a ghoulish, but phony, revenge legend.
Well in that case I certainly see how your assertion that terrorists cannot be investigated or tracked or put under surveillance until they actually commit the act of terrorism holds weight.
Why are you talking about this guy? Why did you bring him up?
And what’s your point? It may be ghoulish, it may be phony, it may be revenge legend (whatever that means). The question is: would it be an effective way to combat terrorism? Yes or no? And why?
And do you think that executing someone with a gunshot and throwing pig entrails into his grave is more ghoulish then blowing up children or chopping people’s heads off?
But please, let’s focus on the first paragraph.
It is really obvious: Because the balls of that idea are false, that and it assumes that the terrorism will stop with an action like that. As Abu Ghraib showed, terrorism did not stop; it made many Iraqis who were supporting the US to lose their trust on us.
If that legend-good-idea became real, it would be used as propaganda by the extremists.
And on preview: **Marley23 ** got it, you are not fooling many here magellan01.
No.
Because as Algiers showed, you will kill the terror elements, but France still lost Algeria because the terror unleashed to get the terrorists caused other groups to pop up.
The French authorities still declare their actions a success, since they got their original targets (they say), never mind the fact that other groups appeared because of that repression and in the end France had to leave! I guess that is not considered important for those maintaining ghoulish, phony, revenge legends.
Wouldn’t work because being buried even under a pig’s farm after forcefeeding him with pork until he dies wouldn’t put a muslim’s soul at stakes. Maybe some quite ignorant muslims could be affraid of such a thing (I mean that it could be possible I really don’t know), but the guys we’re talking about, when you read their bio, all seem to have had studied Islam quite in deep. They wouldn’t be fooled by such a threat. Actually, I suspect that only non-muslims would buy the idea that it could be a deterent.
A way to show your despise to said muslims, and to insult them posthumously and their families, sure, but a deterent? No way.
Well, where would you like to start?
How about US troops in Saudi Arabia?
Or the invasion of Iraq to liberate [del]their oil[/del] Kuwait.
Or the invasion of Afhanistan.
Or the more recent invasion of Iraq to liberate [del]their oil[/del] their people.
Lots to choose from - take your pick. :rolleyes:
It’s just a cheap revenge fantasy.
You don’t win a war by assuming your enemies like idiots. Islamic terrorists are not superstitious dolts. If someone is already willing to die for his cause, he’s not going to be dissuaded by a threat to desecrate his corpse afterwards. All you’ve done is give him proof of your own barbarity, which allows him to more easily rationalize his own evil deeds.
This sort of thinking is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the Republican party these days. You care more about symbolism and grand romantic gestures then actually getting the job done.
The goal is stopping Islamic terrorists from killing people. The way to do this is to infiltrate their networks and arrest them before they can strike, while simultaneously making nice to moderate muslims in an effort to win them over to our side. It’s a long, difficult process that won’t yield any big, flashy victories, just slow gradual progress.
The problem is that there are way too many people in this country who got spooked by 9/11 and want something BIG and DRAMATIC done RIGHT NOW. It doesn’t matter if the big, dramatic thing is stupid and counterproductive in the long run, so long as it FEELS like we’re being tough and proactive.
It’s people like that who are going to lose this war for us. People like you, magellan01.
Pull yourself together, man. Stiff upper lip and all that. You also don’t win wars by being a bigger monster than your enemy. You do it by holding steady and outsmarting him. We can **do ** that. But it means turning our backs on cheap, feel-good tactics like committing atrocities against the enemy.
Sorry, change the beginning of that second paragraph to: “You don’t win a war by assuming your enemies **are ** idiots.”
That’s how the UK stopped the IRA.
In the 70s the IRA was able to act with complete freedom, but by the end of the 90s it was hopelessly compromised with British agents and was pretty much unable to operate on mainland UK.
The same needs to be done to Muslim extremism, but it’ll take time as we’ve not got the assets in place yet.
And how much worse do you deserve?
50,000 dead Iraqis cry out to justice for your blood.
Well I’ve seen a lot of internet barking by the con side, but no ideas on how to combat the world’s #1 problem, which is terrorism. Trying to understand them or issuing arrest warrants simply don’t work. We didn’t create these enemies, our freedom did.
Terrorism true intentions are even more sinister than taking innocents lives. They want to cripple other nation’s economies, influence the governments, and alter you way of life. Look at what happened to Spain. The terrorists attacked them, and directly influenced their free election. The nation buckled quicker than you can say piñata.
If relocation of a select few diminished terrorism recruitment, it is a policy that deserves serious thought.
Of course! Nothing to do with 40 years of aggressive forign policy, illegal occupation of sovereign nations, indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, rape of natural resources and suffocating trade policies.
:rolleyes:
While I agree with you that such tactics are a good way to proceed the problem is that Al Queda and the IRA aren’t completely analogous.
By the early 90’s the IRA had been contained to a certain extent but not defeated, it was still capable of mounting operations inside Northern Ireland and the occassional ‘Spectactular’ on English soil.
This was the situation, a stalemate, the IRA could not be totally crushed but it was limited in its ability to operate, this situation could have continued indefinitely but both sides realised it was time to sit down and negotiate.
The problem is that they were still capable of the occassional (say one per year) major attack on England, if Al Queda was capable of being contained even to the extent of the IRA and still capable of operating they’d be able to continue to pull off attacks like those on the London underground because thats their modus operandi while the IRA’s (at that point in time) was to strike against prominent economic targets.
You say “understand” as though it was a dirty word. Understanding doesn’t mean sympathizing. It means analyzing. It means getting a grip on their motivations, their strengths and weaknesses, so we know which lines of attack will be effective in defeating them.
And issuing warrants certainly does work. A year ago the British rounded up a group that was planning subway attacks similar to the ones that just happened. If the U.S. government hadn’t accidentally blown the cover of the mole who provided the intelligence that led to those arrests, there’s a chance that the recent attacks could have been prevented too.
This sort of airy-fairy feel-good talk gets us nowhere. They don’t “hate us for our freedom”. They hate us for a variety of very concrete reasons: Because we support Israel. Because we tolerate repressive middle-eastern regimes to keep the oil flowing. Because we are killing thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism is the outgrowth of long-simmering resentment against the West over a variety of real-world grievances.
Understanding these grievances doesn’t mean capitulating. Just because the terrorists want us to throw Israel to the wolves doesn’t mean we should. But it does mean that (for example) if we work harder to get a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians we can undermine some of the the political motivation behind the terrorist acts.
Spain didn’t buckle under to the terrorists. If anything what influenced the election was the Spanish government’s transparent lies about who the perpatrators of the bombings were, which led to a massive backlash.
The Spaniards are on OUR side in this fight. Calling them cowards isn’t helpful.
Please, not that old chestnut again. Events in Spain:
[ol]
[li]Spanish Government decides for whatever reason to send troops to immensely unpopular war in Iraq. (80% of the voters disagree, but hey…)[/li][li]At election time, opposition declares its intent to withdraw from Iraq if elected.[/li][li]Polls show that election is contended - government is still ahead, but numbers are slipping.[/li][li]Bombs go off. [/li][li]Spanish Prime Minister lies his ass off to place the blame for the bombs on Basque separatists.[/li][li]Spanish electorate kicks the lying bastard out.[/li][li]New Spanish Gvt. withdraws from Iraq, bringing the nation’s foreign policy in line with the (pre-bombing) wishes of the electorate.[/li][li]US pro-war right-wing commentators and their idiot followers throw a tantrum. [/li][li]Spanish police get on with the not-so-glorious work of investigating, making arrests etc. A few suspects prefer to blow themselves up, the rest are tried in court as befits a civilized nation.[/li][/ol] See, that wasn’t so hard.
“relocation of a select few” :rolleyes: - doesn’t it worry you that you sound like a Communist directive ? Those select few have rights. You’re selling justice for safety, and it’s shameful.
Enacting punishment on those who have committed no wrong is tyrannical. Your nation is supposedly based on individual freedom. So why not grow a pair and stand by your nation’s principles, even - actually, especially when - doing so incurs a risk ?