Political Crossfire Forums

[Chymical]

How would you fight a terrorist with WTC wreckage? Lift a girder and smack em upside the head?

wait...I don't wanna know, I don't care, Go Terrorists, Nuke everyone, as long as it gets rid of all these fat useless morons, I don't mind dying in a nuclear winter, it'll be worth it...

[Tek]

Chymical wrote: How would you fight a terrorist with WTC wreckage? Lift a girder and smack em upside the head?

wait...I don't wanna know, I don't care, Go Terrorists, Nuke everyone, as long as it gets rid of all these fat useless morons, I don't mind dying in a nuclear winter, it'll be worth it...

lol immaturity lol

If terrorism does not exists then Peace does not exists.

[Chymical]

Tek wrote: Chymical wrote: How would you fight a terrorist with WTC wreckage? Lift a girder and smack em upside the head?

wait...I don't wanna know, I don't care, Go Terrorists, Nuke everyone, as long as it gets rid of all these fat useless morons, I don't mind dying in a nuclear winter, it'll be worth it...

lol immaturity lol

If terrorism does not exists then Peace does not exists.

don't judge so soon! the buddah said enlightenment is to have the heart and soul of a little child.

I get what you mean about terrorism above, without freedom fighters of old we would not have to peace we do today. God bless the framers and their ideals, which some attempt to pervert on their phoney war on terrorism, which is really just a war on the peoples fight for a better life.

Some people should be strapped down and read 1984 for however long it takes for them to 'get it'.

[Saracen]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: We ALL have heard things similar to the following:

- There is no terrorism

Oh, it is, but it's not an organization. Terrorism is an organization.

Quote: - America and Israel are to blame for being in Arab lands

Well, obviously. They're there, and the Arabs are far from occupying Western lands. Do I see any Western governments ruled by Arabs who are oppressing their citizens? I think we all know the answer to that one: no.

Quote: - A War on Terror cannot be won

Well, considering that both sides, the Coalition/Israel and Al Qaeda/Palestine use it, of course it can't.

- Fighting terrorism and extremism in Iraq instead of American soil is Bush propaganda
Quote: - Fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists

How can you fight a friggin' tactic? How can you fight "terrorism" when your Coalition is using terrorism and sponsoring it as well? Please, put the emotional "fighting terrorism" bullocks aside, because I'm calling what I see like it is. When Palestinians kill Israelis

Quote: - Terrorists and their supporters only make up a few thousand people

A few thousand does not compose the entire Muslim population of 1.4 BILLION.

Quote: So I will now show you how extremists who are not in Arab lands behave and use their freedom and free-speech.

Opinion: Europe has a lot to worry about - the EU is I think fragile at this time, but it seems there are some who are not happy at all. These people has as much right to say what they want to say as anyone else. However, if there's proof that terrorism and extremists views permeate through to moderate Muslims, I would suggest these pictures tell a thousand words:

Yeah, they do, considering that people who carry placards do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those around them. Let's take a look at some beautiful pictures over here:








(Btw, this guy is a Hindu, and his placard reads "kill Muslims")

Of course, who could forget this?



Please, extremism is bad, and it's a many-way street. This is not to downplay "Muslim" extremism, but it's meant to show you that it happened for a reason.

Quote: Will there be a 9/11 as these signs state, in the EU? These are the people who do not understand nor deserve the freedoms they have, and who are living off the backs of Europe. Kudos to being civilized.

Most of those who protested with these placards do not know better, or simply are the most vocal. The majority, while not violent, is more silent. Obviously, all extremists have a loud voice. Why do you think animosity happens in the first place?

Kilo Tango wrote: Anyone who argues the false comparison of 3000 U.S. civilian deaths vs 645,874,987,566,957,231 dead Iraqi newborns is utterly and naively missing the point.

If you're telling me that hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are less worth than 3,000 dead Americans, then you, my friend, are a racist.

[Gaea]

Ozzone wrote: Moot wrote: With US borders wide open and it's ports and nuclear plants basically unprotected for the last five years....one would think the terrorists would just be pouring in to wreak havoc and destruction.

Well, where are they?

Maybe they are in Gitmo:

But you will never know, will you?

Quote: or maybe they are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Obviously they aren't here. We took the fight to them and implemented policies, like President Bush promised and kept, to catch them instead of sitting around on our asses and waiting for them to hit us again.

Oh I know we can do more for internal security, but it's much better to stop them long before they can attack us here than try and catch them in the act.


Obviously they weren't in Iraq either. Yes the terrorists do reside in Afghanistan, but then Bush wasn't too interested in fighting the real terrorists there was he? So much for taking the fight to them, eh? Nor did Bush seem too interested in stopping them from crossing our borders. So how do you know they aren't already here just waiting? Waiting to get you?

Gosh, advocating the pre-emptive attack on millions of innocent people who did nothing to hurt you kinda shows that fear and paranoia must be overwhelming for you. Maybe it would better if you just took a sedative so that we don't need to keep making the same mistake that you advocate over and over again. Because cowards like you are just making the world less safe for the rest of us.


Quote:
Which is better, fighting them with these: (photo of armed Marines)

or this: (gutt wrenching photo of WTC aftermath)

'Nuff said.

Nuff said for you maybe. But you know, I think it would be better if YOU personally took the fight to the terrorists. I'll even chip in for your one way ticket to the front line in Southern Afghanistan. That way it wouldn't be just some abstact fantasy to indulge your paranoia and you could be sure that you were really fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Wouldn't that make you feel safer? I know it would me.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Saracen wrote:

Quote: - A War on Terror cannot be won

Well, considering that both sides, the Coalition/Israel and Al Qaeda/Palestine use it, of course it can't.

Which just occurred to me, that Capitalism and Christianity also cannot be defeated by those such as Bin Laden, Hamas... The only way is to forcibly convert 300 million people to Islam... that won't happen any time soon. This make me think that the Marines may be armed better with the Bible.

Saracen wrote: - Fighting terrorism and extremism in Iraq instead of American soil is Bush propaganda

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Chavez - would you also say their claims are also propaganda? How about Bin Laden's people? Same?

Quote: - Fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists

Saracen wrote: How can you fight a friggin' tactic? How can you fight "terrorism" when your Coalition is using terrorism and sponsoring it as well? Please, put the emotional "fighting terrorism" bullocks aside, because I'm calling what I see like it is. When Palestinians kill Israelis Of course there's a way to fight it. People say things like "How do you fight it? You can't!" is actually incorrect. The way to fight it is very distasteful to the Western mind and but the way to fight it is with impunity. Intelligence to find who the members are - then attack that members family ... men, women, children, old people... with impunity. Sure that would make us as bad as them... but that's the way to fight it. Small bands of roving assassins. See... what doesn't change is what was learned back in WWII... the indiscriminate bombings of cities. Why was that done? It was done to dishearten the soldiers ability to fight. Sure there was a tactical piece to it as well - but after 1941 it was secondary. Remove the soldiers will to fight by making him worry about his family. Make him worry that he'll be the only one left alive when it's all over. Strictly on a tactical level, that works (not talking morality here at all) and it works well.

Saracen wrote: A few thousand does not compose the entire Muslim population of 1.4 BILLION. Agreed ... but those who are calling for death and threatening the West and to kill and murder aren't those thousand in those pictures Saracen. Those are immigrants or citizens of European country's in those pictures.


Saracen wrote: Yeah, they do, considering that people who carry placards do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those around them. Let's take a look at some beautiful pictures over here: This isn't a duel of pictures. The point is these people who are calling for murder are apparently not terrorists. If that is TRUE, then, why are they calling for the death of the West? Why are they calling for a 9/11 in Europe? If they ARE terrorists, then shouldn't they be locked up? If they ARE terrorists, are they part of the few thousand or are they unaccounted for?


Saracen wrote: Please, extremism is bad, and it's a many-way street. This is not to downplay "Muslim" extremism, but it's meant to show you that it happened for a reason. What reason is good enough? Where does that justification and reasoning go other than a slippery slope.

[Federali]

Just another brainwashed Neo-Con. Bushiites only made things worst with the Muslin world. Look at all the crap US is faced with in Indonesia because of Bush.


http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9351

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A318912

[CountryGuy]

Federali wrote: Just another brainwashed Neo-Con. Bushiites only made things worst with the Muslin world. Look at all the crap US is faced with in Indonesia because of Bush.


http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9351

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A318912

Please explain, maybe with a little more logic and a bit less name-calling. I read his post and it made very good sense.

[Timmytour]

Revenant wrote: "Terrorism doesn't exist..."


It doesn't. Acts of war exist however. People need to get over their selective interpretation of what a civilian is just so they can use buzzwords like "terrorism". Throw the cushy term "civilian" out of the window.

3000 were killed in an act of war.

This post is like an oasis of sense on this thread :tu:

Though of course it should be pointed out that if insurers had got out of their obligations by citing that it was an "act of War" (as they would have been fully entitled to do if it were the case), then I daresay even Bush would have condemned them for the approach.

Mind you, he did help them out a tremendous amount by agreeing to compensate people via the Victims Compensation Fund on condition that did not pursue further action against Insurers.

Which begs the question....why did the families of those people receive so much money (7bn) when others who have lost their lives in the war have received next to nothing?

[Rankor and Pissing]

Federali wrote: Just another brainwashed Neo-Con. Bushiites only made things worst with the Muslin world. Look at all the crap US is faced with in Indonesia because of Bush.


http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9351

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A318912

Care to name names? Who is the brainwashed Neo-Con you're referring to?

[Ozzone]

callous wrote: Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

They are only meaningless to you. You, like many others, ignore the premises the pictures suggest.

[callous]

Ozzone wrote: callous wrote: Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

They are only meaningless to you. You, like many others, ignore the premises the pictures suggest.

premise = imaginary world.

[Ozzone]

callous wrote: Ozzone wrote: callous wrote: Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

They are only meaningless to you. You, like many others, ignore the premises the pictures suggest.

premise = imaginary world.

Premise = a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

I'll remember that the next time you pose one. It'll just be your imaginary world.

[Saracen]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Saracen wrote:

Quote: - A War on Terror cannot be won

Well, considering that both sides, the Coalition/Israel and Al Qaeda/Palestine use it, of course it can't.

Which just occurred to me, that Capitalism and Christianity also cannot be defeated by those such as Bin Laden, Hamas... The only way is to forcibly convert 300 million people to Islam... that won't happen any time soon. This make me think that the Marines may be armed better with the Bible.

Nonsensical. The only way to win a war on terror is to kill all terrorists or convert them into dope-smoking hippies, and that includes many terrorists in the American and Israeli governments. It's not a unilateral thing.

Quote: Saracen wrote: - Fighting terrorism and extremism in Iraq instead of American soil is Bush propaganda

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Chavez - would you also say their claims are also propaganda? How about Bin Laden's people? Same?

Yes. All propaganda. I call it like I see it, not like I wish to see it.

"Spin" doesn't exist in my dictionary.

Quote: Quote: - Fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists

Saracen wrote: How can you fight a friggin' tactic? How can you fight "terrorism" when your Coalition is using terrorism and sponsoring it as well? Please, put the emotional "fighting terrorism" bullocks aside, because I'm calling what I see like it is. When Palestinians kill Israelis Of course there's a way to fight it. People say things like "How do you fight it? You can't!" is actually incorrect. The way to fight it is very distasteful to the Western mind and but the way to fight it is with impunity. Intelligence to find who the members are - then attack that members family ... men, women, children, old people... with impunity. Sure that would make us as bad as them... but that's the way to fight it. Small bands of roving assassins. See... what doesn't change is what was learned back in WWII... the indiscriminate bombings of cities. Why was that done? It was done to dishearten the soldiers ability to fight. Sure there was a tactical piece to it as well - but after 1941 it was secondary. Remove the soldiers will to fight by making him worry about his family. Make him worry that he'll be the only one left alive when it's all over. Strictly on a tactical level, that works (not talking morality here at all) and it works well.

No, it isn't. The bolded sentence is a contradiction of sorts. You can't expect not to create more terrorists by killing innocent civilians. You can screw them over however you may like, but don't expect them to greet you with flowers and chocolate. Tactically, it won't work, because it's using terrorism to fight "terrorism". And that creates more terrorism, assuming that "their" terrorism created "your" terrorism, which in fact is actually vice-versa.

Quote: Saracen wrote: A few thousand does not compose the entire Muslim population of 1.4 BILLION. Agreed ... but those who are calling for death and threatening the West and to kill and murder aren't those thousand in those pictures Saracen. Those are immigrants or citizens of European country's in those pictures.

I didn't say I defended their actions.

Quote: Saracen wrote: Yeah, they do, considering that people who carry placards do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those around them. Let's take a look at some beautiful pictures over here: This isn't a duel of pictures. The point is these people who are calling for murder are apparently not terrorists. If that is TRUE, then, why are they calling for the death of the West? Why are they calling for a 9/11 in Europe? If they ARE terrorists, then shouldn't they be locked up? If they ARE terrorists, are they part of the few thousand or are they unaccounted for?

Well, look: both the Israeli Zionist extremists I depicted and the "Muslim" extremists (I know they're Muslim, but note that I didn't call the Israeli extremists "Jewish" either) that you showed us don't know any better... That's called sensationalism, and lack of education on matters that concern us all, such as pluralism and moderation. I can't answer your questions, but they might have been really pissed off. Likewise, Israeli Zionist extremists want to expel Arabs either because they believe that there should be no Gentiles in Palestine, or that they don't want them (the Palestinians) to harrass them.

I know, too collectivistic on my part, but I was just using it for the sake of example.

Quote: Saracen wrote: Please, extremism is bad, and it's a many-way street. This is not to downplay "Muslim" extremism, but it's meant to show you that it happened for a reason. What reason is good enough? Where does that justification and reasoning go other than a slippery slope.

I'm just saying that things happen. Extremism doesn't happen just like that. There's always something behind it. A motive, or a political gain? Who knows? It's our job to find out what it is.

[callous]

Ozzone wrote: callous wrote: Ozzone wrote: callous wrote: Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

They are only meaningless to you. You, like many others, ignore the premises the pictures suggest.

premise = imaginary world.

Premise = a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

I'll remember that the next time you pose one. It'll just be your imaginary world.

You'll be waiting a long time until the next (first) time I debate with photographs of isolated incidents and emotional rhetoric.

[Angelicus]

callous wrote: Ozzone wrote: Moot wrote: With US borders wide open and it's ports and nuclear plants basically unprotected for the last five years....one would think the terrorists would just be pouring in to wreak havoc and destruction.

Well, where are they?

Maybe they are in Gitmo:



or maybe they are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Obviously they aren't here. We took the fight to them and implemented policies, like President Bush promised and kept, to catch them instead of sitting around on our asses and waiting for them to hit us again.

Oh I know we can do more for internal security, but it's much better to stop them long before they can attack us here than try and catch them in the act.

Which is better, fighting them with these:



or this:



'Nuff said.

Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

I thought we'd left that behind.

We all thought we'd left making the baseless "nazi" comparisons in an attempt to illicit an emotional response in the readers behind too, but you sure proved that one wrong, now did'nt ya.

:lol:

[callous]

Angelicus wrote: callous wrote: Ozzone wrote: Moot wrote: With US borders wide open and it's ports and nuclear plants basically unprotected for the last five years....one would think the terrorists would just be pouring in to wreak havoc and destruction.

Well, where are they?

Maybe they are in Gitmo:



or maybe they are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Obviously they aren't here. We took the fight to them and implemented policies, like President Bush promised and kept, to catch them instead of sitting around on our asses and waiting for them to hit us again.

Oh I know we can do more for internal security, but it's much better to stop them long before they can attack us here than try and catch them in the act.

Which is better, fighting them with these:



or this:



'Nuff said.

Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

I thought we'd left that behind.

We all thought we'd left making the baseless "nazi" comparisons in an attempt to illicit an emotional response in the readers behind too, but you sure proved that one wrong, now did'nt ya.

:lol:

mmm, no, as a nazi comparison generally is an academic comparison, and a picture is an isolated event captured for its isolated emotional value, and as such has no value in logical debate.

[jeechoscopy]

Terrorism exists...

from the poor caves to sofisticated white houses.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Saracen wrote:
No, it isn't. The bolded sentence is a contradiction of sorts. You can't expect not to create more terrorists by killing innocent civilians. You can screw them over however you may like, but don't expect them to greet you with flowers and chocolate. Tactically, it won't work, because it's using terrorism to fight "terrorism". And that creates more terrorism, assuming that "their" terrorism created "your" terrorism, which in fact is actually vice-versa.

Ok so let's take this to it's end... it creates more and more terrorists on both side until the death and destruction gets so great as to do one of a few different things:

1. It forces peace upon both sides, since both are sick of the death
2. One side defeats the other either by total genocide or other means
3. Both sides annihilate each other until neither are left

I do however disagree with the sentence bolded above. I think you can expect to create less terrorists if the cost of being a terrorist is too high, even at a religious level. There is some historical precedent set (i.e. WWII as I cited previously). At the time, the civillian deaths were in the hundreds of thousands bombed indiscriminately and no terrorists were created on either side, from either country. However, in my scenario the targets are not indiscriminate at all, but the family members of known terrorists. There still would be a huge difference. I think it's important that "like to like" tactics be explored and either rejected or adopted. I can think of no more savage and barbaric happenings. Are my 3 options the only one's that could likely occur if like tactics were used against terrorists?

Saracen wrote: I know, too collectivistic on my part, but I was just using it for the sake of example. I'm willing to cut you a break if you give me the same courtesy. We're discussing and debating some of the biggest issues of our times and we're just two of billions... I'm willing to cut some slack! :)


Saracen wrote: I'm just saying that things happen. Extremism doesn't happen just like that. There's always something behind it. A motive, or a political gain? Who knows? It's our job to find out what it is. At what point does it cease to be just something that happens, and becomes something more. Is it more people involved who aren't considered "terrorists" or supporters of terrorists? How will anyone be able to recognize that it IS or IS NOT simply isolated events of angry people, or mislead people or justifiably pissed off people?