Are We Winning the "War on Terror"?

All hail Pope Monty!!!

It's got a certain ring it y'know?:smile:

Nah at the last interview they didn't take a shine to my idea of turning the Vatican into a Hotel/Casino and using the profits to abolish collection plates.

They also expressed a preference for the pope to be catholic or at least believe in god.

Go figure.

:) <---- PS the use of the smiley face is to denote humor (it may not be good humor) but I know how these things can be over looked in Religious and political "discussions".
 
Last edited:
"Which is why I believe the Nation is moving away from the Republican Party.
I look for the Republican Party in America today to go the way of the Whigs, which was strangely enough the predecessor of the Republican Party." quote.


While Abraham Lincoln had been a Whig leader , in fact the voter base of the Whig party, on its demise, was shared between The Republicans and The Democrats, and minor parties of the time.
 
Nah at the last interview they didn't take a shine to my idea of turning the Vatican into a Hotel/Casino and using the profits to abolish collection plates......
Huh,.... Fussy buggers.

Then again, there's just no accounting for some peoples tastes. Some of these nutters actually think that there is some vague relationship between God and religion,... damn fools.

Better get back on topic,.... eh.
 
But doesn't say more about the resolve of the Democrats than the Republicans?

It does.
I believe that if the Democrats were to remove President Bush from Office that not only will the Democrats be doing the Nation a great service, but that the Democrats will cement their Political hold on Washington D.C. for many decades to come, which could be a bad thing.
Sadly I do not view the Democrats as risk takers Politically, and I will add the rest in my answer to senojekips below.

On this point I must admit that I am not a close follower of US politics, and really don't know much about the parties involved other than their most basic Ideologies. i feel that it would be very unwise of me to make too much of the policies of one or the other as I would end up being shot down in flames, so I must stick to what I see her and now and comment on those things that are happening at this moment.

History has already recorded how the Republicans view the process of Impeaching the sitting President of the United States of America, as in the case of President Clinton.

While Abraham Lincoln had been a Whig leader , in fact the voter base of the Whig party, on its demise, was shared between The Republicans and The Democrats, and minor parties of the time.

Are you lettered in American Political History?
 
The War on Terror is just a catchphrase to keep us feeding the military-industrial complex and fighting pointless battles in countries that have nothing to do with us. It cannot be won.

I think they should just use reprisals. Soon as they find out where the terrorist is from, his hometown and family becomes a glassy crater in the desert. See if their Allah is worth it. If he is, increase the power of each strike threefold until they either get the point or there are none left to reproduce. Fight terror with absolute terror - make them fear the noise of any aircraft and force them to wonder if it is about to vaporize them.


THUS we win the war on terror that doesn't exist and can't be won, right?
 
THUS we win the war on terror that doesn't exist and can't be won, right?

Until of course said terrorist turns out to be Abdul Smith born in the UK then are still keen on seeing the their places of residence and family blown off the face of the earth?

What seems to be conveniently over looked these days in the desire to classify all terrorists as shady middle eastern types living in Iran is that a large number are shady middle eastern descendants who are born and raised in various parts of the west.

For example Richard Reid ring any bells or how about David Hicks, I am sure the Australians would love to see Adelaide become "a big glassy crater"
 
Last edited:
Until of course said terrorist turns out to be Abdul Smith born in the UK then are still keen on seeing the their places of residence and family blown off the face of the earth?

What seems to be conveniently over looked these days in the desire to classify all terrorists as shady middle eastern types living in Iran is that a large number are shady middle eastern descendants who are born and raised in various parts of the west.

For example Richard Reid ring any bells or how about David Hicks, I am sure the Australians would love to see Adelaide become "a big glassy crater"



Exactly. Precisely. Spot on. At last you are paying attention. This is the £1,000,000 question. Please read my short last post again, carefully, if you missed the point of it. Personally I thought it was very good.


I hope you realise that you are supporting my post!

My next question was to have been " And what about the terrorists in your street"? Your town, your district, your state.

This is the threat I continually warn of. We have it here, big time. No point sticking our heads in the sand. No point in telling me it isn't so.
The necessity is to recognise the danger, face it, and consider the strategies. This is where the struggle has to be to eliminate the problem, however long it takes. I am not quite so concerned about muslim countries situatuons, they should do what they do.

But - I want neither to surrender my culture to those who would impose themselves on it, or to ptretend it is not happenning. My message has always been - if you haven't yet got this problem, look to your laurels and make sure it does not creep up on you; this is how it happens.

Why should your part of the globe escape - they want you for a sun-beam just as much as they want me.

Like it or not fellas - I'm on your side. And the names of such villains as Monty has thrown up are the ones I stuck up much earlier to help make my case. You rascals never read my posts, I can tell.
 
Last edited:
I realize my statements may sound extreme, but this is a new type of enemy. One that will never surrender once you have depleted its military strength. The only option is to completely eradicate them by any means necessary, be it bombing a Middle Eastern town or pumping a house down the street with nerve gas. The more brutal and indiscriminate you get, the more your world image decays, but the less morale your enemies will have.
 
I realize my statements may sound extreme, but this is a new type of enemy. One that will never surrender once you have depleted its military strength. The only option is to completely eradicate them by any means necessary, be it bombing a Middle Eastern town or pumping a house down the street with nerve gas. The more brutal and indiscriminate you get, the more your world image decays, but the less morale your enemies will have.

Do you honestly think your police, army would happily cruise up to a suburban house in your own country and willingly kill all the occupants even when they know only one out of 5 people inside is a terrorist?

What you are recommending is tantamount to the formation of South American death squads and I have to say they were never popular with the west or even the nation they were in, all brutality does is create instability which in turn opens the door to terrorism.

The fight against terrorism needs to be fought primarily internally with strong accountable government, good policing, good communication and good intelligence (from all international agencies) and externally in a more "surgical" manner and by supporting developing nations in attaining the type of government that removes the support base for terrorists.

Just carpet bombing a village will do little more than disperse the problem.

Exactly. Precisely. Spot on. At last you are paying attention. This is the £1,000,000 question. Please read my short last post again, carefully, if you missed the point of it. Personally I thought it was very good.


I hope you realise that you are supporting my post!

My next question was to have been " And what about the terrorists in your street"? Your town, your district, your state.

Up until recently this board was plagued by an "if you are not for us you are against mentality" there was no understanding or attempt to understand the middle ground I am hoping that view has now been moderated to a "we can all accept there is a problem we just disagree on method of solving it" mentality.

In this case I don't think there is a person on these forums who doesn't know that terrorism is a global problem but I think many would disagree that the answer is wiping towns, cities and villages off the map will solve this problem.
 
Last edited:
I think they should just use reprisals. Soon as they find out where the terrorist is from, his hometown and family becomes a glassy crater in the desert. See if their Allah is worth it. If he is, increase the power of each strike threefold until they either get the point or there are none left to reproduce. Fight terror with absolute terror - make them fear the noise of any aircraft and force them to wonder if it is about to vaporize them.

I have been thinking for a few days now about how to reply to this message without being too personally insulting so here goes...

What you have said in this paragraph is the stupidest thing I think I have read in a long time and that includes my own writing. The level of ignorance displayed in the logic of this is of a caliber that should restrict you from the right to vote in my not so humble opinion.

You need to educate yourself. Read the USMC Small Wars Manual and continue to reread it, with a dictionary if needed, until you understand why I have responded so strongly to this line of complete nonsense that has spouted forth from your cranium.

If you kill my family, my relatives and my neighbours you will have created THE most dangerous enemy you could ever hope for- a man who has nothing to lose. You will NOT destroy my morale and you will not in anyway decrease my will to fight. You will in fact give my fight fire and moral indignation. You will have proven the propaganda proclaimed about your country is in fact, true More will join my fight and more will sympathise with my fight and your OWN people will lose heart when it is discovered that in their name great atrocities have been committed which violate the myths of their nation that they hold as a moral compass to their nation and to their own lives.

The acts you speak of would destroy your own country from within because they violate core beliefs.
 
Bulldogg, I think your restraint is amazing. I kept right out of it in view of recent happenings.

ML, I have always been of the opinion that your posts were well thought. Bearing in mind your age, I will put this down to the exuberance of youth, Yep, we've all been there.

I sometimes feel the same way after reading of the tactics of our opponents, I think the secret is to settle down a bit before you go into print.:jump:
 
MontyB;. Up until recently this board was plagued by an "if you are not for us you are against mentality" there was no understanding or attempt to understand the middle ground I am hoping that view has now been moderated to a "we can all accept there is a problem we just disagree on method of solving it" mentality. In this case I don't think there is a person on these forums who doesn't know that terrorism is a global problem but I think many would disagree that the answer is wiping towns said:
MontyB - you really just don't get it, do you! Spare me the completely irrelevant lecture. You are whipping me for agreeing with you.

Let me say this again in a way you may possibly understand.

My one line post response which I gave to Major Liability was a line of derision , OBVIOUSLY!
From your response I detected that you did not spot this, and therefore could only assume that you had not read the post.

So I then pointed that situation out to you in detail, but once again you adopt the same attitude.

Look - how can I spell it out - we are both taking the same position - that of not being happy with ML's plan of annihilation.

Please go back and read the line again- and please do not keep responding as though I am supporting ML's viewpoint.

I cannot believe this, are you doing it purposely to wind me up, in which case you are succeeding, or are you having a laugh at my expense? Read the damn one-line post again, please.



BULL-DOG.

I completely agree with your post and this was precisely why I responded to ML's post with a one-liner deriding his postion,
which had been that "there was no war on terror, that this war could not be won, and that he would win it by simply blasting them and theirs to kingdom -come, " all in more or less the same breath..
 
Last edited:
Umm what are you on about?
I was simply pointing out that now board dynamics have changed a little that agreement should not come as a surprise.

You should not automatically assume everything is an attack.
 
Look here - i do not assume everyone attacks me.

And Ummm - it was you who seemed to have the wrong end of the stick in the first place, and after i complained I do not think you made any attempt to retrieve the situation. Anybody reading your posts would get the impression that you were responding to ML and myself in the same order. I found this exasperating.

Can I make this clear. I tried to oppose ML's viewpoint in one line, on the same basis as Bull-Dog did in a paragraph or so. My held position is just as Bull-Dog's in this matter. And as yours I have already reiterated.

Do we now understand each other on this issue? I hope so. The last thing I need is to be misunderstood, I have quite enough trouble when I am understood.

Anyway - no offence intended, just needed to make my position plain.
 
bulldogg, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. You'd do this AFTER the terrorist blows himself up/is apprehended.

You just have to be REAL thorough so there are no family members left to seek vengeance.

We gotta act like Russians because a conventional army will never win a war on terror, whether you believe in it or not. Make the repercussions for terrorists so brutal, so absolutely terrible, that even an afterlife in paradise isn't worth the suffering you and your kin will receive.

Edit: Oh yeah, I'd be fine without the right to vote. Republicans, democrats... equally terrible choices.
 
We gotta act like Russians because a conventional army will never win a war on terror, whether you believe in it or not. Make the repercussions for terrorists so brutal, so absolutely terrible, that even an afterlife in paradise isn't worth the suffering you and your kin will receive.


terrible example for you to bring up the russians....they tried these tactics by carpet bombing whole villages off the map, and they are still trying it in cechenya without success

Israel has also tried it in a more limited fashion by destroying family homes....again without success
 
Last edited:
Back
Top