The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM. This is definitely valid. Perhaps you should read the post that I responded to before you come in shooting from the hip.[/quote]

I did not make the threat of a nuke, perhaps you should make certain the person who made those references. Perhaps it was your assumption that that was what I meant, and maybe I should have been more clear, but in no way would I ever suggest a nuke.

The mistakes that created this mess were open and blind tolerance to unregulated migration. This was also not homegrown terrorism, France does not produce this shit, nor does Europe in general. This ideology followed these people from their homeland, when it should have been halted at the French border.

Those who practice the violent forms of extreme Islam can GTFO.[/quote]

Unregulated migration is to blame? That is demonstratively false. As I have stated ad nauseum in this thread, the Paris cell was French. They were born in Paris. They grew up in Paris. They were radicalized by as-Sahab (Arabic: the Cloud), which is al-Qa’ida’s propaganda division. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was as-Sahab’s chief within al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula. [/quote]

The French are not known for fostering radical Islam, and being born in Paris does not assume citizenship, as they do now recognize Birthright Citizenship. Changing your physical location does not always your assume your thinking changes too.

422

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I disagree with much of what you wrote, but you have this part exactly backwards. It’s not the West that can’t tolerate Islam, unless by Islam you mean the wholesale slaughter of innocents simply for practicing a different form of their own religion (see: Boko Haram).

It is Islam as practiced by various theocratic nation-states that can not tolerate the West.
[/quote]

By Islam I mean them wanting to be allowed to stone women to death for whatever reason. Obviously most Western states don’t really like that.

And many of the Muslim terrorists attack the West because the West does things that they consider abhorrent and they believe the West is pushing that onto them.

And yet, Russia and China routinely commit human right violations and the West just leaves them alone. They have to tolerate it even though it goes against their stated beliefs because reality demands it.

You took the most negative interpretation possible of my statement. Not sure why you did that.[/quote]

Because by being purposefully vague, you’re attempting to set up a false equivalence between “things we do” and “things they do”.

In fact, you attempted it again in this very post. “And many of the Muslim terrorists attack the West because the West does things that they consider abhorrent and they believe the West is pushing that onto them.”

This is true, we do do things they find abhorrent. Things like, not forcibly circumsizing our women and allowing a woman to walk down the street without being escorted by a male relative.

Our abhorrent =/= their abhorrent unless you are completely missing a moral compass.

If that’s what you’re saying, then say it. Say that we’re all allowed to decide right from wrong for ourselves and that if they believe murdering infidels is the way to the Promised Land, well, then who are we to say any differently.[/quote]

Invading their countries, impose social mores and political systems upon them they have no way of connecting with, killing a few hundred thousands to make a point…

Y R they mad !?!

Plus, if you have the right to kill lots and lots of people because, values, so do they.

In essence you are saying that you have the right to kill because of your values, because those are the universally right values and those bloody infidels bloody dont, because their values are bloody barbaric.

Which is the pretense used by every butcher, ever, who felt he even needed an excuse.

423

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
People offend us, snear at us, insult us, and persecute us all the time, no terrorism results from it.[/quote]

Because that’s how the religion was founded. It was persecuted and if you were persecuted, you were made a martyr. In Islam, dying in battle against the infidel makes you a martyr. That’s why it’s non-comparable, evil pasts or no evil pasts. Christianity=/=Islam.[/quote]

I think an honest approach to history itself would be helpful. People like to quip about ‘crusades’ and the ‘inquisition’, without knowing who did what and why… For example were it not for the Crusades, Europe would be under Sharia and bowing 5 times a day to Mecca whether you liked it or not. Western civilization as we know it would not exist…So ‘You’re welcome’.[/quote]

The Crusades officially lasted from 1095 â?? 1291. But that does not include the Turkish “crusade” into Europe. Or the Muslim 'Crusade" against India.

or the Moors invasion of Spain.

424

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The major strategic fail is that radical muslims aren’t a unified entity. Whatever city or landmark or whatever you threatened would inevitably have radical parts of Islam that would WANT to see it blown up.[/quote]

I don’t think any Muslims would want to see Mecca blown up.

426

[quote]pat wrote:
If we pulled every western toe out of arabic lands and gave them everything they say they want, they would still kill us. Hell, it would embolden them to kill us even more.[/quote]

This statement is 100% true. One just needs to look back through history to know this. Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Hezbollah got stronger, Israel pulled out of Gaza and Hamas got stronger. US pulled out of Iraq, ISIS (al-Qaeda in Iraq) got stronger.

427

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

OR maybe we should just try to reason with them. Perhaps if we asked them nicely they would leave us alone?[/quote]

What is interesting is what chicken is proposing is exactly what they did to us on 9-11-01. They took down the universal symbol of the United States. That was what the towers represented to them. That’s why they were hit. It was a symbol of America’s power and now it is no more. When I heard about the towers in 01, my first reaction was someone should blow up the Kabba. So, it’s not exactly unthinkable.

No one in the West would dare to do it. Luckily for them the Saudis or whoever control Al-Qaeda set it up as a stateless organization so no state would get the blame.

But indeed, it has been done to us.

428

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
From David Brooks in the NYT:

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let?s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn?t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.[/quote]

Only difference…if we did that, they would still be alive.

429

What you all dont get is that you will never see eye to eye with Islamists.

There are two ways out of this:

A) You kill them all, along with a lot of innocent bystanders at a rate of 1:4 or so. ( The DoDs numbers regarding asymetrical warfare) or

B) They will kill you until the numbers of dead Americans and whoever else, reaches a thrashold that teaches you that no, they will not bow to your values, no, they have no interest in your system of government and, yes, they can keep on killing until your understand that.

Their idea of victory is that you get lost and pester someone else, your idea of victory seems to be that they all live in suburban America, sending their totally not circumsized daughters to school to become engineers!!

Well, they kind of have an advantage when it comes to their victory conditions.

431

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

We have to gain the psychological upper hand. That means making them FEAR us more than they currently do. We need to take off the kid gloves.

[/quote]

This is the key.

We are dealing with cowards. Cowards respond to FEAR. Well.
[/quote]

Degenerate pieces of shit, yes. Cowards, no. Terrorists who do not fear death cannot be deterred.

The key is the disruption of terrorist attack cycles. Intelligence, especially human intelligence, is the best tool for doing just that.

Yes cowards who do not fear death yet kill helpless unarmed victims, behead non-combatants who have their hands bound behind their backs. Real brave. Real brave.

436

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone venture a guess why al Qaeda doesn’t mess with Israel much?

I have a hunch why.[/quote]

Because Israel leaves them alone.

More or less.

437

Addendum:

Because Israel does actually not venture abroad in search of monsters to slay, they have so many monsters right next to them!

439

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What we are doing isn’t working. [/quote]

Yeah and you and I are the only ones coming up with other ideas even if they are a bit extreme and have no chance of being carried out.

Your Mecca idea at least follows a proven template though. In WWII I believe we detonated at least one nuclear devise off shore of Japan first. Then we hit a city, then another and Japan finally conceded. We now have a great relationship with Japan and have had this great relationship with them for at least my lifetime of 50 years.

As Magic Johnson used to say, “go to the well until the well runs dry”.[/quote]

Or as Toby Keith used to say, “we’ll put a boot in your ass its the American way”. Or is that a thing of the past now?[/quote]

People have come up with other ideas about how to deal with it. Not detailed and fleshed out, but nuking Mecca or a pre-determined Muslim city isn’t a detailed plan either.

How much effort and resources have Western countries truly given to fight terrorism outside of their own borders? The Iraq war was not about terrorism but it cost trillions and many American lives as well as even more innocent civilian lives. Imagine if that same rigor, planning, and effort was given to root out terrorist organizations abroad, like al-Qaeda in Yemen? Or eradicate their financing network?

We haven’t even tried moderate ideas yet, or given them the proper effort. No need to try the most evil and counter-productive strategy first.