So you going to tell me that the people in the WTC kicked muslim excrements in the wedding tackle? if you ever manage to actually make me believe for an instant that 911 was even remotely justified, then how about explaining the rest of the muslim hatred or the rest of the world to me too
The "war on terror" is a "mistake",
So you going to tell me that the people in the WTC kicked muslim excrements in the wedding tackle? if you ever manage to actually make me believe for an instant that 911 was even remotely justified, then how about explaining the rest of the muslim hatred or the rest of the world to me too
Wolfen, you want a reason or a justification?
If you want a justification... I dont have any...
But if you want reasons, there is plenty. A reason is that a little group of Muslims decided to reach heaven to have sex with a lot of virgins.
And they decided to attack "evil people" to gain their access to paradise.
That was the reason behind it. it's pretty twisted.
Of course, there is people who agree with them at 100% and other who agree with them on some points.
I can agree with them with the idea of paradise for those who lost their lives fighting for justice. It's a pretty image. I love the idea of a god rewarding noble people.
But I dont like the suicide tactics... I think it's twisted. and their own religion says that suicide is a sin. Twisted even to their own standards.
Then there is the idea of the USA as a corrupt empire... I think that there is some truth in that. A lot of crimes were left unpunished.
And then there is attacking civilians... I dont agree with that. I think that the civilians are innocent and that there is no justification in attacking them...
So no, I dont think that the 9/11 attacks have a justification. But there is a reason behind it. The people who have done that are extremists. But they werent crazy.
If you want a justification... I dont have any...
But if you want reasons, there is plenty. A reason is that a little group of Muslims decided to reach heaven to have sex with a lot of virgins.
And they decided to attack "evil people" to gain their access to paradise.
That was the reason behind it. it's pretty twisted.
Of course, there is people who agree with them at 100% and other who agree with them on some points.
I can agree with them with the idea of paradise for those who lost their lives fighting for justice. It's a pretty image. I love the idea of a god rewarding noble people.
But I dont like the suicide tactics... I think it's twisted. and their own religion says that suicide is a sin. Twisted even to their own standards.
Then there is the idea of the USA as a corrupt empire... I think that there is some truth in that. A lot of crimes were left unpunished.
And then there is attacking civilians... I dont agree with that. I think that the civilians are innocent and that there is no justification in attacking them...
So no, I dont think that the 9/11 attacks have a justification. But there is a reason behind it. The people who have done that are extremists. But they werent crazy.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
You've got it arse about face Wolfen.
The small fella in my statement was the terrorists, the big fella was the USA:???:
There's an old saying, let sleeping giants lay.
The conclusion is LeMask, if you dont want to get a good hiding, dont pick on the big boys.
Last edited:
HokieMSG
Active member
Amen to that Britin
perseus
Active member
I suppose even the big boys can be picked on by savages, look what happened to the Romans.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
This is a whole new and complicated thread in itself.
Queen Boadicea was on a roll in around AD60, who destroyed what is now modern day Colchester, London and Saint Albans before finally being defeated at the Battle of Wattling Street.
I have both reason and Justification for my haterd of them, email me sometime and I'll tel lya.
Christianity?
Last edited by a moderator:
major liability
Active member
I'm with wolfen on this one. You can't expect to keep your hands clean when fighting this kind of war (if you can even call it that). Personally I think it would be better to set up a dedicated multinational force without borders to hunt terrorists rather than invading entire countries and spending vast resources occupying them. No mess, just small forces in the night cleaning individual houses and leaving.
Still, probably not practical considering there are nuclear-armed Islamic states. It's a real conundrum.
Still, probably not practical considering there are nuclear-armed Islamic states. It's a real conundrum.
Partisan
Active member
I'm still amused by the concept of the war on terror. It seems whenever a government is confronted by a tough problem, it declares war, thereby deferring results but seeming to take lots of action, and scoring news headlines.
My question is this, after several years on the war on terror - where are we, what are the defined objectives and more importantly what is the desired end state (which I can't recall being explicitly stated), after all this is a "global" war on terror, so is there a desired global end state?
My question is this, after several years on the war on terror - where are we, what are the defined objectives and more importantly what is the desired end state (which I can't recall being explicitly stated), after all this is a "global" war on terror, so is there a desired global end state?
senojekips
Active member
I think the idea was very romantic, this was further stuffed up by the way in which the war was prosecuted.
The great shame is, that the war has cost far more lives of young US servicemen than the act that precipitated it.
It has also broadened the power base of, and to a degree, legitimised the terrorists who are now seen by many as patriots. Just plain dumb, if you ask me.
My opinion for what it is worth, is that the Coalition should have limited their retaliation to covert intelligence gathering, coupled with occasional long distance sniping of the terrorist hierarchy, and training areas with weapons like Armed UAVs and cruise missiles.
I'm not sure that we could "win", but we could keep them on the defensive without risking the huge amounts of man power and materiel that we are now.
A series of quick surgical (bloodless for us) strikes, a la Ghadaffi.
The great shame is, that the war has cost far more lives of young US servicemen than the act that precipitated it.
It has also broadened the power base of, and to a degree, legitimised the terrorists who are now seen by many as patriots. Just plain dumb, if you ask me.
My opinion for what it is worth, is that the Coalition should have limited their retaliation to covert intelligence gathering, coupled with occasional long distance sniping of the terrorist hierarchy, and training areas with weapons like Armed UAVs and cruise missiles.
I'm not sure that we could "win", but we could keep them on the defensive without risking the huge amounts of man power and materiel that we are now.
A series of quick surgical (bloodless for us) strikes, a la Ghadaffi.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Fighting terrorism is an impossible type of war to win, as UK found out in Northern Ireland. PIRA was never defeated militarily. Take one cell out, and another pops up somewhere else.
Having said that, after 9/11 something had to be done and done quickly.
My two cents worth
Having said that, after 9/11 something had to be done and done quickly.
My two cents worth
I join Wolfen in his opinion.
I think that a lot of people live miserable lives.
And we can find them in rich countries and in poor countries (third world). They are unhappy because life is "unfair". Corruption and poverty everywhere.
So these people find no one to defend their interests but terrorists... It's sad. But it's life.
These people will support the people who fight for them. If the people who fight in conventional ways to defend them arent there or just arent efficient...
Terrorists will step up and do their job.
Of course, they do a terrible job. Because we decide to not let them win.
If tommorow some Taleban take over in Saudi Arabia... We will send troops to kick their sorry butts...
Even if we all know that the Saudis are corrupt.
Isnt that supporting corruption for stability? and what this stability is here for? for bussiness.
We want stability to make money. that's it. It's all about power and money.
We are ready to spend billions to bomb terrorists... But we are unable to spend millions to do what they want to do to make them obsolete.
Terrorists will exist as long as they are needed.
I think that a lot of people live miserable lives.
And we can find them in rich countries and in poor countries (third world). They are unhappy because life is "unfair". Corruption and poverty everywhere.
So these people find no one to defend their interests but terrorists... It's sad. But it's life.
These people will support the people who fight for them. If the people who fight in conventional ways to defend them arent there or just arent efficient...
Terrorists will step up and do their job.
Of course, they do a terrible job. Because we decide to not let them win.
If tommorow some Taleban take over in Saudi Arabia... We will send troops to kick their sorry butts...
Even if we all know that the Saudis are corrupt.
Isnt that supporting corruption for stability? and what this stability is here for? for bussiness.
We want stability to make money. that's it. It's all about power and money.
We are ready to spend billions to bomb terrorists... But we are unable to spend millions to do what they want to do to make them obsolete.
Terrorists will exist as long as they are needed.
Partisan
Active member
The really scary thing is that a lot of the terrorists that are named and shamed are well educated and in good paying jobs, they just can't forget where they've come from or what they've and has been done to them.
So perhaps a war on poverty, and a war on corruption might be more appropriate, but then I guess a war on corruption would be like the pot calling the kettle black for politicians.
So perhaps a war on poverty, and a war on corruption might be more appropriate, but then I guess a war on corruption would be like the pot calling the kettle black for politicians.
Cold_feelings
Active member
Ok I have read most of this and then stop when it became a endless debate
Now please tell me where I am wrong in this but
Why doesn't every country close's up its border's and work out their problems internally cause I know being in the U.S.A we have problems just like any other country and we have our on terrorist cell's here and guerrilla groups I mean honestly every country has asked this one time or another, so who is it that is saying no I mean if the east are having problems let the east handle it its not our problem
I found it so funny that we are still fighting battles from so long ago when its has gotten us no where, and no I'm not saying we need peace cause in my belief I know that war is natural you battle your self everyday.I mean what in hell will it take everyone is looking to these *explicit* governments for a answer when in all honestly they are doing nothing different then we are
For the record all I see most of you doing is combating the subject that means absolutely ****, and you know it.
if I am wrong tell me I am
Now please tell me where I am wrong in this but
Why doesn't every country close's up its border's and work out their problems internally cause I know being in the U.S.A we have problems just like any other country and we have our on terrorist cell's here and guerrilla groups I mean honestly every country has asked this one time or another, so who is it that is saying no I mean if the east are having problems let the east handle it its not our problem
I found it so funny that we are still fighting battles from so long ago when its has gotten us no where, and no I'm not saying we need peace cause in my belief I know that war is natural you battle your self everyday.I mean what in hell will it take everyone is looking to these *explicit* governments for a answer when in all honestly they are doing nothing different then we are
For the record all I see most of you doing is combating the subject that means absolutely ****, and you know it.
if I am wrong tell me I am
I will repeat my statments. There is no military reason that makes a "war on terror" impossible to win. You can physically kill each and every single terrorist and reach a price tag that makes being a terrorist not very desireable. In this I mean ovcourse a certain area, not the entire world. For example: It is possible for the IDF to go house to house in Gaza and kill 10000 hammas operatives, the entire hammas leadership, and destroy their entire logistic and communication ability.
The problems are not military, they are political. Us westerners dont want to see thousends of our trrops killed in house to house fighting. We dont like seeing civilians killed either, even if they support the terrorists by words or action. So we fight with one hand tied behind our back. Any country that fights terrorists usually has some othr country limit its actions and critisize its "inhumanity". Russians in Chechnya, USA in Iraq, Britain in Ireland, Israel in Lebanon and Gaza.
Since the west is not wiling to fight long hard and dirty, the troops are forced to fight without using all tools they have, fight for a "Televised victory" instead of a real military result, fight for "the native population" instead of their countries intrest and so on. The current western mentality that is more worried about enemy non-combatents, media opinion, human rights and so on makes it indeed damn near impossible to reach a military conclusion.
The terrorists have no such problem. The more civilians they kill, the more media cover they get. The like meida cover. The more civilians on their side are killed, the more of a "freedom fighter" image they get.
So, one of two end resluts, with regard specifically to muslim terror, are possible:
1) The west keeps fighting clean and eventually we all are either dead or muslim.
2)The west turns to the dark side and beats terror to the ground. In said process we loose alot of the values we are fighting for.
Both options suck.
The problems are not military, they are political. Us westerners dont want to see thousends of our trrops killed in house to house fighting. We dont like seeing civilians killed either, even if they support the terrorists by words or action. So we fight with one hand tied behind our back. Any country that fights terrorists usually has some othr country limit its actions and critisize its "inhumanity". Russians in Chechnya, USA in Iraq, Britain in Ireland, Israel in Lebanon and Gaza.
Since the west is not wiling to fight long hard and dirty, the troops are forced to fight without using all tools they have, fight for a "Televised victory" instead of a real military result, fight for "the native population" instead of their countries intrest and so on. The current western mentality that is more worried about enemy non-combatents, media opinion, human rights and so on makes it indeed damn near impossible to reach a military conclusion.
The terrorists have no such problem. The more civilians they kill, the more media cover they get. The like meida cover. The more civilians on their side are killed, the more of a "freedom fighter" image they get.
So, one of two end resluts, with regard specifically to muslim terror, are possible:
1) The west keeps fighting clean and eventually we all are either dead or muslim.
2)The west turns to the dark side and beats terror to the ground. In said process we loose alot of the values we are fighting for.
Both options suck.
Sherman you are at best pessimistic in your approach. It's good to learn from the past/history, but dont forget that the futur will be history too someday...
There is many other options.
I honestly think that we can win any battle "clean". But you have to go "full clean". Not just clean in battle.
Anyway, first things first, terrorists cant win a military war against us. It's impossible. They dont have strategic weapons... They cant do anything...
I think that organised crime is much better equiped for warfare than these loonies...
But they can win the war on other battlefield. And I think that the battlefield of moral values is our weak spot.
Terrorists are like criminals. They destroy civilization. If we give up on our values to fight them... We will be destroyed as a civilization.
And even if we accept to loose a lot of men by house to house fighting, we wont kill them all. Because first, they disguise themselves as civilians... And in fact, they are civilians disguised as fighters...
If we try to snatch a military victory... We will loose men, tons of money and our values.
And once again, I think that we should keep in mind one simple thing. Democracy isnt just the right to vote. It means free press, it means right for free speech, it means human rights, it means the right to have a different opinion... All these things have a price.
And please Sherman, enough with the enemy non-combatant.
There is the enemy, and there is the non-combatant. You shoot the enemy, and you spare the non-combatant.
You cant let soldiers label civilians as "enemy"... Because the second they will see the civilians as "unarmed enemies"... They will be looking for excuses to shoot them down.
Very dangerous. Do go there.
There is many other options.
I honestly think that we can win any battle "clean". But you have to go "full clean". Not just clean in battle.
Anyway, first things first, terrorists cant win a military war against us. It's impossible. They dont have strategic weapons... They cant do anything...
I think that organised crime is much better equiped for warfare than these loonies...
But they can win the war on other battlefield. And I think that the battlefield of moral values is our weak spot.
Terrorists are like criminals. They destroy civilization. If we give up on our values to fight them... We will be destroyed as a civilization.
And even if we accept to loose a lot of men by house to house fighting, we wont kill them all. Because first, they disguise themselves as civilians... And in fact, they are civilians disguised as fighters...
If we try to snatch a military victory... We will loose men, tons of money and our values.
And once again, I think that we should keep in mind one simple thing. Democracy isnt just the right to vote. It means free press, it means right for free speech, it means human rights, it means the right to have a different opinion... All these things have a price.
And please Sherman, enough with the enemy non-combatant.
There is the enemy, and there is the non-combatant. You shoot the enemy, and you spare the non-combatant.
You cant let soldiers label civilians as "enemy"... Because the second they will see the civilians as "unarmed enemies"... They will be looking for excuses to shoot them down.
Very dangerous. Do go there.
03USMC
Active member
Wrong again Sunshine. Enemy Non-Combats are classified as Civilians of an enemy nation who are not actively bearing arms. Prisoners of War, and in some cases Medical Personnel.
With western society depending more and more on technology, just hitting communications is enough of a stratigic weapon. Couple that with the possibilety of WMDs ending up in terrorist hands, and i would say a stratigic terror attack is more than possible. Heck, a natural gas tanker blowing up in a major port is a stratigic attack in a class of its own. Also, considering the ammount of muslim radicals living in western countries they are more than capable of launcing major attacks at western cities and causing major problems in the EU, US.
Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. Get your head screwed o right, you dont know what some terror groups are capable of.
Only diffrence is the Mafia needs western society to feed off, terrorists want to completely destroy it.
I believe that the right to maintain a pulse is somwhere there as well.
Are you attempting to teach me ROEs? Thats cute. Enemy non-combatents are civilians, POWs, and all other citizens of a hostile entity that are not armed. You dont shoot at them without good reason, but they are still enemy.
Trust me a unarmed civilian "non-combatant" can turn into a Armed combatant in about 2.5 seconds. Anybody from any military can tell you that, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who has been in that situation.