The real answer to terrorists

[bugsbunny04]

Okay, first we have to ask, what do they wnt and how far are they willing to go to get it. The answer is this: They want to destroy our freedom, and they want to scare us, and they will die for their cause.

Now, consider this, the patriot act is a victroy for them, that I believe, has already been established, but If you want to argue it, There is a thread to do it in.

Containment measures, including the patriot act, are not causing any damage to their efforts. We are not hurting them in any way. We are giving them exactly what they want. Making people feel like criminals because they want to commute by air is not scaring the terrorists, it is showing them that we are scared. We are acting like a bunch of fraidy cats. We are not fighting the terrorists, we are surrendering.

Now, we have also tried attrition. The war in Afganistan, has had a mix of success and failure. But the war in Iraq is a disaster. The fact that we went there shows we are scared. The fact that the American people did not overwhelmingly protest and the polls did not show at least 75% vehement disapproval before we went in, shows we are scared.

Israel has continued to use attrition, in spite of the fact that it has continued to fail. They keep engageing in minor skirmishes and flexing their muscles like they think the terrorists will be frightened into stopping. All they are doing is making it easier for the terrorists to recruit.

So, how do we make them stop? These people will not stop as long as they live, they are bound by a twisted sense of martyrdom do die for their cause, and they will never surrender. So, how do we defete them? The same way we would have defeted Japan, if we had not demonstrated that not only would we kill them all, but they would not have the opportunity to die in a glorious fight to the death, but simply be massacred like rats in a sewer full of gasoline getting a lit match dropped in. The answer is really quite simple: KILL THEM ALL. That is the only way they will ever cease hostilities, if they cease to exist.

Putting them in jail is not the answer, executing them after a media circus trial is not the answer either. We have to go where the terrorists themselves are. Forget their allies. Forget their sponsors. Attacking their friends like Saddam Hussain are just attempts to scare people who are completely insane and think that death is better than life. They do not care that we are attacking their friends. They see occupational troops as more targets! Containment is ineffective and is a euphamism for surrender. Attrition just makes them more motivated and in greater numbers, not less and fewer.

The only way to win is to KILL THEM ALL.

Who wants to tell me I'm wrong?

[tusaki]

Yes, nuke the fuckers. Get 'm. No pity...

But, this has practical limitations. How can you easily label someone terrorist? Is someone a already terrorist before he commited the acts which expose him as such? How would you differenciate between a group of protesters and terrorists? How about non-arab terrorists? Is collateral damage ok? if so, can you see the Patriot act as collateral damage? Won't killing the terrorists just create more terrorists?

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by tusaki, Yes, nuke the fuckers. Get 'm. No pity... But, this has practical limitations. How can you easily label someone terrorist? Is someone a already terrorist before he commited the acts which expose him as such? How would you differenciate between a group of protesters and terrorists? How about non-arab terrorists? Is collateral damage ok? if so, can you see the Patriot act as collateral damage? Won't killing the terrorists just create more terrorists?

Spies, agents and infiltration. Someone is a terrorist if they are planning an attack and have made preparations for it. Non arab terrorists are to be treated the same way. Protestors dont stockpile semtex. Collateral damage is a reallity of warfare, at least we wouldnt be killing civilians on purpose. The patriot act is surrender. Not if you kill them all.

The way I think of it-- We killed em all in the Crusades (we being termed loosely), and theyre exacting revenge on us. Personally, I think the age of the terrorist will pass.

And its not like there is a place called "Terrorist City". It would be tough to get them all without getting a bunch of non-t's. Oh well.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by Gregory, We killed em all in the Crusades...and theyre exacting revenge on us...And its not like there is a place called "Terrorist City"...It would be tough to get them all without getting a bunch of non-t's...

That is paradoxical. If we had killed them all, they would be extinct...NSS- No Sh*t Skippy...That is a reallity of warfare. In war, folks get killed. They aint all soldiers. Sure a lot of civilians would get killed. But we could be extremely surgical about it, and keep collateral to a minimum. I think small amounts of accidental collateral is better that huge numbers of civilians getting blown away on purpose, but thats just me.

[Gorgo]

The best way to stop terrorists is to stop voting for them.

[castille]

Well the problem is, only nations can vote for the UN chief

[Sonart]

The only way to win is to KILL THEM ALL.

Well, we're certainly trying our best in Afghanistan and Iraq, aren't we. They're certainly trying their best in Israel. The problem seems to be in FINDING THE LITTLE FUGGERS! And now another problem seems to be that they're making more terrorists faster than we can kill them. So says Donald Rumsfeld.

Yours is a simplistic arguement, Tusaki. I'm sure our forces would love nothing better than to kill them all, except it's just hard to get them to hold still so we can do it. That's the thing about guerilla wars against occupying forces. The Vietnamese lost a million dead to our 55,000. Did'nt stop them. The Afghanis lost even more to the occupying Soviets. Didn't deter them much, did it? We simply CAN'T kill them all, at least not without killing thousand upon thousands of innocent civilians. We start doing that and we'll be dealing with MILLIONS of terrorists. Think Vietnam on a global scale. Won't that be fun.

[Pooeypants]

One question, how do we know all terrorists want to destroy our freedom? How do we know they couldn't give a rat's arse about it? Have you interviewed all of them?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, how do we know all terrorists want to destroy our freedom?

Google "Letter to America". Your looking for OBL's full text version of his letter. Spells out exactly his plans for the west.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants, how do we know all terrorists want to destroy our freedom?

Google "Letter to America". Your looking for OBL's full text version of his letter. Spells out exactly his plans for the west.[/b][/quote]
So Mr Bin Laden speaks for all terrorists? I am amazed, they must think he is a great leader. :rolleyes:

[PatrickHenry]

You folks keep leaving out the most effective terror org in world history: CIA. They initiate, plan, train and utilize terror for their own agenda. It's documented. Fundamentalist Muslims and other unofficial "terror" groups are newbies. CIA are the Masters of Terror. But they must be on "our" side, right? Because they work for the US gov, right? And the US Gov is "our friend", right? Sorry if I seem cynical to all you teens. Conspiracy is real.

[Gorgo]

Talking about people like Bush and Clinton.

Originally posted by castille, Well the problem is, only nations can vote for the UN chief

[Comrade]

I think castille realized that.

I wonder why "bush is a terrorist" is perfectly acceptable but when someone says "when the Cole got bombed, what did Clinton do? he went and got a blowjob" its partisan rhetoric and flaming and "blaming Clinton" as if Clinton wasn't our president for eight years...apparantly not Gorgo, who was kind enough to include Clinton is some of the "responsible" parties (IMO, the only people responsible for terrorist attacks on America are the terrorists) but I see it a lot here.

Pooey, I'd be much more inclined they want to just destroy US, our freedoms included. And as for Osama speaking for all terrorists...I'd be willing to be believe his complaints are the same as the majority of anti-US organizations.

[Gorgo]

Osama bin Laden is a criminal. Bush and Clinton are criminals. Crime doesn't stop crime.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Comrade, Pooey, I'd be much more inclined they want to just destroy US, our freedoms included. And as for Osama speaking for all terrorists...I'd be willing to be believe his complaints are the same as the majority of anti-US organizations.

You give the US too much credit, not every terrorist organisation out there wants something to do with the US. Unless ofc, you can show otherwise.

[Kyran]

I'll do it.

You are wrong Bugs.

These people will not stop as long as they live, they are bound by a twisted sense of martyrdom do die for their cause, and they will never surrender.

They'll also stop if we stop supporting Israel and pissing on the property rights of Palestinians. But hey, since our government doesn't even respect our own property rights, it'll be a spam-free day on AOL before this ends peacefully.

[bugsbunny04]

Well, I guess we could surrender, pack up, and pull everything we have out of the middle east altogether, and break all relations with anybody who does not do the same. Then release every single prisoner or detainee, then give them every dollar we can find and beg them for forgiveness for all the innocent people we killed on accident, and beg them to forgive us for trying to help a group of folks that they have outnumbered by a rediculous margin and are trying to kick off land that could easily be argued they are the rightful owners of.

Then some of them might stop. But there will still be those who continue hostilities, because they cant get over it.

Besides, I dont do the surreneder thing.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Sonart, We simply CAN'T kill them all, at least not without killing thousand upon thousands of innocent civilians. We start doing that and we'll be dealing with MILLIONS of terrorists. Think Vietnam on a global scale. Won't that be fun.

bingo.

conservative military types insist on viewing terrorist organisations as a finite group of individuals engaging in combat against an enemy (the west), who can potentially be identified, located, and eliminated.

they can't.

terrorist groups are fluid organisations that are based not in terms of a conventional hierarchy of leadership, but rather on a common belief that they are being wronged by the enemy.

the more individuals you kill - without addressing their underlying greivances - the stronger they get. this has been proven time and time again.

yet still conservatives insist on discussing it in terms of conventional "war", and their enemy as individuals, like osama. killing osama will not stop al qaeda for one minute.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sonart, We simply CAN'T kill them all, at least not without killing thousand upon thousands of innocent civilians. We start doing that and we'll be dealing with MILLIONS of terrorists. Think Vietnam on a global scale. Won't that be fun.

bingo.

conservative military types insist on viewing terrorist organisations as a finite group of individuals engaging in combat against an enemy (the west), who can potentially be identified, located, and eliminated.

they can't.

terrorist groups are fluid organisations that are based not in terms of a conventional hierarchy of leadership, but rather on a common belief that they are being wronged by the enemy.

the more individuals you kill - without addressing their underlying greivances - the stronger they get. this has been proven time and time again.

yet still conservatives insist on discussing it in terms of conventional "war", and their enemy as individuals, like osama. killing osama will not stop al qaeda for one minute.[/b][/quote]

Many good points there, however: The tactics I propose would not kill thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties, the proof is in Afganistan, the only instance of us actually having the sense to do it the only way that will work: the hard way. The mass civilian casualties are usually the result of trying to do shit the easy way, ie. sending divisions of mechanised infantry and Armour, supported by missles and bombs, like we are doing in Iraq. Like Israel is doing in Israel. And what gets me about Israel, they are being half assed about the wrong tactics, in addition to using them in the first place. I really just dont get what Israel thinks they can accomplish.

And they are finite. They are a bilogical organism. They are no more infinite than an any of the stars of Jurrassic Park. Static? No, of course not. But there growth is probably additional, or at worst multiple, but certainly not exponential. And they wont be stronger if there arent any left. Killing Osama wont stop Al Queda. Killing every single one of the mother fuckers that constitute Al Queda would. Hunt the cells. Forget Bin Laden. I worked up a probability that he has not died from natural causes and its something in the general neighborhood of 1000:1, and that was six months ago. That does not take into account he has been in a very hostile enviornment, complete with cookie cutter bombs when we get a group of them isolated in a cave with no civilians around. You have a better chance of winning 3 solitare games in a row than we do of finding Bin Laden alive. As far as I'm concerned he is MIA pressumed dead. Stopping Al Queda consists of infiltrating cells, using spies, hunting them with everything we have, and depending on the specific situation, send either an individual (to take out an individual), or no more than a Ranger Battalion, with Spectre and Apache or Cobra support in the case of a large training camp. Or anything in between, with whatever support used in what ever role is needed by the situation. But in general, conventional forces, and therefore the largest percentage of collateral damage, would be left out of the equation alltogether.