It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

terrorism as a solution to terrorism.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Most of Najaf is on our side? Are you insane? Let me tell you all something if you dont believe that every single citizen of Najaf KNOWS who the millitants are and EXACTLY where they are you are mentally enfeebled. The reason these terrorists can hide is because they are being hidden By the citizens. Now I'm sorry but to me tht makes them accomplices. And as such the united states has every right to condemn them all to death. You think terror tactics wont work? How do you think that Saddam kept control ll those years huh? Why wernt there roadside bombs or attacks on police stations 3 years ago? Because the population of Iraq was so scared shi*less of him that they wouldnt dare to do it. The fact is that these people are ALL terrorists. There is no difference between a man who straps a bomb to his ass and the guy who gives him food or cheers him on. as for Al queda well OBL is a member of the Saudi royal family therefore this is my reccomendation, we tell the saudis that they are responsible for his crimes that if ANY attack by al queda ever harms a single american again we kill the royal famil every prince every princess every cousin every last one of them. If even 1 american is harmed we will wipe thier line from the face of the earth. Do that and I guarantee that al qued will be shut down in about 8 hours and OBL zarquawi and all the rest will be turned over by the next morning. Do you really think they dont know where he is? Christ the whole reason al queda is so well funded is BECAUSE he is a member of the royal family. as for nukes yeah we nuke a city and the world would react the first time it would probably increase terrorism but by the 4 or 5th city well have them well in hand



Q

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I like your thinking, mwm.
Maybe a bit overzealous, but you've got the right mindset.

You don't become involved in any war to prove your moral superiority. War is for killing (or pummeling into submission, at very least) the declared enemy. In this particular instance, our moral superiority is being called into question by the UN (don't get me started on their moral shortcomings!), by the populace supporting the terrorists that started all of this in the first place, by the terrorists themselves (in an attempt to use our own superior humanitarianism against us), and weak-minded sops in the US who buy into the crap that all of the aforementioned are feeding them.

I'd certainly give my support to wholesale bombing of any terror-supporting rally. That consituency is the enemy here, after all. I have absolutely no moral issues with cremating a group of people burning the flag of my country, spitting on effigies, and jumping up and down screaming about how they'll kill any of us they possibly can. The reason we're in the current situation is because we've been ignoring things like this for decades and doing nothing to stop it. It's only now that this problem has grown to such mammoth proportions that there can be no ignoring it. If we don't take the hard line, we might as well just go over there and offer ourselves to them for beheading individually, and let the whole damn world devolve back into the Sharia-ruled stone age that they'd make if they could. Obviously, most other countries in the world are unwilling to fight for their freedom, so once we're gone there would be virtually no resistance. Exceptions to this might be Russia or China, who despite their track record on freedoms, are at certainly smart enough to drop the hammer in their own defense without handwringing over whether or not saving their own skins was "moralistic".

I'm with you on the disengagement idea as well. The US gives more food aid to the world than every other country combined. (Over 51% of the UN's World Food Program, for those of you scrambling to debunk this.) This includes the aforementioned people jumping up and down screaming about how they want to kill us. Am I the only one who sees this as being slightly WRONG? If a country wants to be our friends and allies, then great. Share the love. However, if this is the thanks we get from the others, I say we give it to someone else who might be more appreciative. No benefitting from the US generosity, or economy--period. There will always be abundant partners for the US to do business with without these ungateful freeloaders. Even the terrorists, sworn to kill us all or die trying, love the good 'ol American greenbacks above all other currency. Note that Saddam wasn't found with dinars...

In essence, fighting terrorism with terrorism wouldn't be as effective as you might think. Sure--it'd make you feel lots better--but it wouldn't accomplish the goal. Such action would only create more enemies out of people who might otherwise be neutral, or even friendlies.

However, I do strongly advocate a more robust response than the overly-governed military action we're currently involved in. The marines surrounding Fallujah were chomping at the bit to take care of that problem in a most expeditious and uncomplicated manner--but instead, we put the very people giving us problems on the payroll as "police" for the city. They dance in the streets, claiming victory over a war machine that could easily have reduced the whole area to a smoking greasy spot...all so we could claim moral superiority by not doing so. I do undertand the rationale for this--you catch more flies with honey, so to speak, and the whole object of this "occupation" is to turn things back over to the Iraqi people and get the hell out of there. Still, there's a big part of me that says we'd have been better off mopping the floor with them. I guess I'm just not down with this "kinder, gentler war" that we seem to be engaged in.

While it isn't necessary or wise to nuke all areas where there are people who wish to do us harm, I do think we're being too stingy with the brute force needed for both effectiveness and to garner respect from the savages. (The latter of which I care not for, but it is a consideration, and therefore part of the discussion.)



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   
on a side topic
why the hell are we still using gas from the mideast when biodiesel works just as well and would increase the income of Americas farmers as well?


www.biodiesel.org...


rus

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   


They dance in the streets, claiming victory over a war machine that could easily have reduced the whole area to a smoking greasy spot


And how would you do that? By starting a nuclear war? You have to remember that US does not have the largest nuclear weaponary in the world. The true fact is that u can't take Fallujah nor Najaf nor Kufa. US Army can not hold even a crippled nation like Iraq. Not to mention any other nation in the area, which wasn't under sanctions for a decade. They have a reason to dance...after all they humiliated the most EXPENSIVE army in the world. GG Iraq Resistance !



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   
uhhm I think if we could level berlin 60 years ago we wouldnt have much trouble with najaf and we wouldnt need nukes to do it. The fact is using conventinal weapons it would only tke about 2-3 hours of bombing to turn najaf into a smoking crater.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
jsobeckey,

Why bother to post a solution that may in fact be impracticable? I thought this was a philisophical debate about Terrorism. I believe that the premise was in favor of attacking "Terrorists" with "Terrorist" tactics.

I have argued against such a proposed doctrine. You cannot MORALY justify lowering yourselves to the level of the Terrorists. In answer to your question/suggestion about your little Western Round-up, I have a question for you: Where do you draw the line between who is expelled from this country and who is allowed to stay? Are you going to intern second generation Arab-Americans? Jews? Muslims? Anyone with any Semitic blood or maybe just a big nose?

Where do we draw the line? Well, you tell me. You proposed that we leave their land entirely and immediately. Therefore, the only answer to that is they must leave our land, immediately and entirely. If you want me to choose who must leave, then I say make them all leave.

Since this is a philosophical debate on fighting terrorism with terrorism, which I advocate, it makes sense that if they want us expelled, then they must also be made to leave our country.

So, since we cannot, according to you, MORALY (sp) lower ourselves to the level of the Terrorists, are we supposed to give them haven in the counry that they hate, and want to expel from their soil? What type of logic is that?

Why do you bring the Jews into this picture? You know that I have never mentioned them at all. Are you trying to create a straw man argument?


It's one thing to spout-off(tongue-in-cheek)"That We should just NUKE the Middle East and stick a gas pump in." That is obviously an overstatement. Please don't try to make any quasi-legal, certainly immoral arguments in favor of this riddiculous proposal.

Once again, please don't create any straw man arguments. You know full well I never advocated that. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.


I thought We were supposed to have the moral high-ground in this war on Terror!?!


Terrorists have no morals that entitle them to that consideration. They must be fought with kidnapings, poisons, pig blood, humliations, lies, deceit, psy-ops, mis-information about their 'religion', and anything else that will make them fear us more than death.

I have said before, and I reiterate: we need to use proven methods of dealing with known terrorists, such as Abu Hamza or al Sadr. They need to be made to disappear from the face of the earth. Spread misinformation that they have crossed over to the enemy side and sold out, if necessary. Do not let them freely incite violence toward US without consequences. Is it fair? Life isn't fair. War is even less fair. Terrorism is advanced by unfair attacks on innocents.

Who will decide who shall die? We will. And a sure way to get onto our short list is to preach violence towards us.

You won't like this answer. Tough titty. I don't like terrorists, or those that apologize for them.




[Edited on 3-6-2004 by scottsquared]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Hell, why limit the use of "terrorism in response to terrorism" to Middle Eastern countries? Why don't we use it against domestic terrorists as well?

For instance, whenever a doctor or clinic offering abortions is killed or attacked, let's bomb a Pro-Life rally!
Or when an anti-government "terrorist" blows up a government building or attacks government personnel, let's nuke the town they live in!

Do you think Americans would stop opposing the government, or abortion, or whatever, if this happened? Or would it strengthen their argument and add support to their cause?

According to MIPT, from 2003-present, there were 16 acts of domestic terrorism in the US. Do you think all 16 towns where these terrorists live should have been bombed? What if you or your family lived in one of the towns?


 Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


Are you willing to endorse the use of your proposed action in response to any and all acts of terrorism? Or is it just when the "terrorists" live in a country, and among a people, that you consider worthless?

This is a very concise and accurate explanation of terrorism by
Steven Mack Presley
Lieutenant Commander
Medical Service Corps, U.S. Navy

The use of threats of violence and/or sabotage to accomplish political objectives, whether "justified" by religious convictions or the most noble of humanitarian reasons, is still simply terrorism, and no degree of 'pseudo-legitimization' can alter that designation. www.fas.org...


If we did what you suggest, and kill 200 saudis and 200 afghanis because 2 saudis and 2 afghanis caused the deaths of 10 Americans, the reaction would be for 200 saudis and afghanis to cause the death of 10,000 Americans. If we then nuked 4 towns, you'd better believe that they would find a nuke of their own to hit back with.
Eventually, there would be no one left over there, like you suggest. Unfortunately, our own country would end up mostly in chaos and ruins, as well.
Here is a case in point from the FBI's 1999 "Terrorism in the US" report:


The August 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the subsequent August 20 U.S. missile strikes on suspected terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan have heightened risks to U.S. interests worldwide. Since the August 20 U.S. military strikes, there has been a marked increase in the number of threats directed at U.S. interests, primarily overseas.
www.fbi.gov...


Frankly, you scare the hell out of me! It is this sense of superiority and the failure to realize that humans are humans, regardless of where you were born, that will prevent our species from living on this planet in peace.


The notion that humans are the most intelligent or evolved species on the planet, seems like a joke, when thinking like this presents itself.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Personally, I think this is a crap argument. Mass violence would inflame hatred from terrorists and also from citizens of your own country. How many turned against the war in Vietnam once the horros of it became headline and cross-channel news?

I'd hoped someone would suggest that the way to break down terrorism was from within, through the use of the intelligence services and small scale operations rather than direct conflict. You can't kill them all.

Then again "military intelligence" has always been an oxymoron as far as western governments are concerned.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
uhhm I think if we could level berlin 60 years ago we wouldnt have much trouble with najaf and we wouldnt need nukes to do it. The fact is using conventinal weapons it would only tke about 2-3 hours of bombing to turn najaf into a smoking crater.



So Dont have any Idea what Berlin has to do with Najaf. Dude I think you have hit your head a couple to many times.

You want to know about the weapons of insurgens read this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rus
And how would you do that? By starting a nuclear war? You have to remember that US does not have the largest nuclear weaponary in the world. The true fact is that u can't take Fallujah nor Najaf nor Kufa. US Army can not hold even a crippled nation like Iraq. Not to mention any other nation in the area, which wasn't under sanctions for a decade. They have a reason to dance...after all they humiliated the most EXPENSIVE army in the world. GG Iraq Resistance !


Are you kidding me!? "Good game Iraq resistance!" You're rooting on the enemy? That's ridiculous. If we wanted to, we could blow those cities off the face of the Earth. No, not with a nuke, but with a crapload of missiles and bombs. Not to mention if our men were allowed to bust up in there and kill everyone, I don't think they'd be cheering anymore. Don't even think for a minute those Iraqis have the right to cheer. They'd never be able to take us head on, but if you'd actually read what people have been talking about we're trying to conduct war "morally" which doesn't mean killing everyone. If we wanted to, we could ruin them. But we don't want to because we want to look "morally superior" to everyone else. Which is a load of crap.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
spittincobra were you dropped on your head a lot as a child? or are you just stupid? either way my point (which in truth even an idiot should have been able to understand) is that if we had the abillity t destroy a relativly large city like berlin with conventional weapons 60 years ago then we have the abillity to destroy a relativly small city like najaf. as for this maral victory crap, this is a war in war if you try to follow rules and "play nicely" you will get your ass kicked by those who wont. Didnt we learn anything from vietnam? the reason so many americans died in vietnam and the reason we lost that war is because the political leadership didnt have the will to allow our soldiers to fight to win. And the same thing is happening with the war on terrorism.as to the arabs killing 10000 americans we would simply turn tyhe desert into glass. And whatever idiot said the U.S. doesnt have the most nukes better check thier facts because we do. Not only do we have the most we have the most usuable nukes. most of russias nukes couldnt be launched even if they wanted to because they are in such bad shape they would be more likely to blow up in the silos.. lok all you eurohippies can have any opinion you like and the end of the day you are ALL irrelevant because the only peoples who's opinions matter are americans. Bottom line is this America is the most powerful nation on earth and the opinions of a bunce of little countries who used to have a voice on the world stage dont amount to a hill of beans.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
When ever you get done with your name calling and ranting. The bottom line is, the US would not be in this, if they would stay in thier country and leave others alone.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Well said Jezebel.
Though I can certainly understand and empathize with the emotions of mwm and becky, it is a far cry from thought to action. Where does this fundamental "wrong-think" come from?


Originally posted by jsobecky

Where do we draw the line? Well, you tell me. You proposed that we leave their land entirely and immediately. Therefore, the only answer to that is they must leave our land, immediately and entirely. If you want me to choose who must leave, then I say make them all leave.

Why do you bring the Jews into this picture? You know that I have never mentioned them at all. Are you trying to create a straw man argument?

You won't like this answer. Tough titty. I don't like terrorists, or those that apologize for them.


Oh Becky, Becky, Becky....
You still haven't said just who "they" are. Is an Iraqi who moved to the US 50 years ago, who has since had children who have since had children, to be expelled or exterminated. And if so, is it because of his politics or his blood-line?

I bring the Jews into this because in case you haven't noticed; they are of the same people: Semites. I am also drawing a parallel from your proposal to the Nazi Final Solution. Are you too obtuse to get the reference?

I am absolutely NOT appologizing for any Terrorists. That you wish to emulate thier tactics puts you down at the same level as these sub-human scum.

You need to take a step back and think about what you have writen. You can hold tenaciously to your asinine position but you will only prolong the conflict and end any support from moderate interests intent on bringing peace and stability to the Mid-East.

Better idea: Why don't you and mwm go to Iraq yourselves and try out your little terror-anti-terror model?! If everything works the way you say it will, I personally will head-up the line to kiss your lily white a*ses.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Ah yes, what mwm is referring to is most recently seen by the actions of the Soviet Union against islamic terrorists in their borders. Terrorists have hostages holed up in a soviet theater. The Soviets roll up and just blast the whole place. Shoot the hostage. The power is no longer in the hands of the terrorist.

Personally, I think by far the very best solution, that would just change the face of the planet, would be to immediately switch to an alternative fuel source and quit making any products that require the import of foreign oil. Pull our people out of their territories. And grin.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
tell you what scottsquared you think we should leave the middle east immediatly because ur being there is what is causing the terrorism right? 1 problem we wern't in the middle easty before 911 it was thier actions that brought us. What did we ever do to these people? Buy thier oil and make these countries disgustingly rich Oh the horror. Send them aid every time they asked? Gasp wow we are asshol*s. you want to have a love fest go ahead me I figure its time to get nasty. Build 100,000 preadtor UCAVs and send them to the mideast with instructions to kill any arab they spot. Turn the entire region into a radiated wasteland. Rods from god, nukes I dont care how we do it but these "people" should not be allowed to pollute the human gene pool any longer. As to the ones who emigrated to the staes thier Americans, if they got citizenship they were smart enough to turn thier backs on the barbaric culture they come from and have thus proved thier worth. as for the domestic terrorists kill them and all thier family. In the garden of human genetics you gotta be merciless when pulling the weeds.


rus

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   


uhhm I think if we could level berlin 60 years ago we wouldnt have much trouble with najaf and we wouldnt need nukes to do it. The fact is using conventinal weapons it would only tke about 2-3 hours of bombing to turn najaf into a smoking crater.


Yes you did level Berlin....about 90 % or more i think. But it didn't do you any good. Still you had to wait for the Soviets to take it. Bush keeps asking senat for more money. Bombing a city is not cheap. You can't afford that. Even if you would it wouldn't do much harm to Najaf. You already destroyed their economy long time before and people (including resistance) would survive as you know from Berlin experience.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by rus]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
stage 1 bombing - destroy all structures
stage 2 napalm - burn remaining debris
stage 3 have infantry in circle around city to kill anyone trying to flee city - ensure no survivors
stage 4 iradiate the land out to 1 mile from city limits - insure there will be no resettlement
stage 5 repeat with other cities when needed



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
stage 1 bombing - destroy all structures
stage 2 napalm - burn remaining debris
stage 3 have infantry in circle around city to kill anyone trying to flee city - ensure no survivors
stage 4 iradiate the land out to 1 mile from city limits - insure there will be no resettlement
stage 5 repeat with other cities when needed


You cant be for real, are you 100% serious in saying all of the above? Hitler.

Again, I ask how long till some fool like you is in office?


rus

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
stage 6: Arabs countrys can not take this anymhore so they create an alliance with EU, Russia and China, cuts off oil supplies and your "brave" american army has to go back home on foot and in one year time all of americans die from oil abstinance.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by rus]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
It shouldn't be necessary to destroy anyone's economy. Rather a brief example of what it would be like not to have any US intervention/business (economically or otherwise) would be a way to give their people time to decide what they actually wanted. See, I don't think many of them know. Alot of them seem confused, their allegiances keep vacillating from one side to the other to yet another and another. Do they want to have democracy? Why should they when the money isn't in democracy, it's the oil wealth of the shieks and so forth.

Bin Laden is smart. He knows our leaders are willing to take beatings at his hands for the sake of continued tapping into their oil wealth and has been heard even recently demanding we leave their lands and stop robbing their resources. We should trump his hand and give him what he wants. "Hey, no problem dude."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join