The Killing Joke

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Nope, they’re not killing “until” we understand that. They’re killing until and well after.[/quote]

Theoretically yes, in practice they would just start a round of vicious infighting.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But here we’re comparing Al-Qaeda to the government of the most powerful nation on Earth. We are not Al-Qaeda’s rivals. Maybe if Russia carried out 9/11 it would make sense to bomb the Kremlin in response.

It’s not like we sat back after 9/11 happened. There isn’t anything remotely comparable to the twin towers that al-qaeda or the taliban controlled so we couldn’t respond symbolically, but we went in and waged war. Bombing the Kaaba in response to 9/11 would have been counter productive. The world wouldn’t be able to control the results of that action.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Addendum:

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

That may be part of it but you well know that ain’t the whole of it. Israel would ruthlessly retaliate. Mossad would make the desert washes run red.[/quote]

By taking out their heads and making it very clear that they better keep their mitts to themselves.

Not by trying to re-do whole countries.

I am not against violence per se, but one should know what kind of violence, directed in what direction and to what purpose.

This whoo-hoo, I have drones! bullshit, well, that just pisses people off.

[quote]orion wrote:
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. [/quote]

Hello Orion, I hope you’re doing well.

I don’t necessarily agree with you re: “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…”

Unfortunately for your position, Al-Qaeda doesn’t agree with you either. Bin-Laden authored 2 Fatawa, one in 1996 and the second in 1998 both calling for the murder of Americans. The first was called, “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”. The two Holy Places referred to are Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia as home of Mecca and Medina. We (America) neither invaded either country nor did we impose our social mores and political systems on them. We are, in fact, in SA at the invitation of their government, a fact which galls AQ to no end.

The second Fatwa was written in 1998 and states 3 reasons for declaring war against the US. First, we had and continue to have a presence in SA. Second, we inflicted great devastation upon the Iraqi people (note that this refers to the economic sanctions put in place after the Gulf War, not the occupation associated with the Iraqi War which was still 4 years in the future), and lastly, our support for Israel.

In 2002, in Bin Laden’s “Letters to America” he explicitly stated the reasons for the attack on 9/11. These were Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.

So, nowhere does Bin Laden or AQ list “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…” as the reasons for their attacks on the US.

I’ll go further and say that AQ purposefully goaded us into the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to provoke a pan-Islamist movement. In March of 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel’s document "Al Qaeda’s Strategy to the Year 2020. This strategy comprised 5 stages:

  1. Provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on US soil that results in massive civilian casualties.
  2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
  3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the US and its allies in a long war of attrition.
  4. Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against the US and countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
  5. The US economy will finally collapse by the year 2020 under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places, making the worldwide economic system which is dependent on the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world following the collapse of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world countries.

So, yes, I’m explicitly stating that our values are greater/more moral/more universally right than theirs are. They* are barbarians and should be exterminated post haste.

*They = those responsible.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this.

I will say, in reference to my above post, that we act Israeli-like and ruthlessly and relentlessly slice out the cancer and give no quarter in the process.[/quote]

I agree that it’s best to be thorough and not waste money and lives on half-assed efforts.

The problem is the American public is war weary and we’re a society that has lost the will to sacrifice for a greater common goal. Not to mention how quickly we lose interest in a topic. There are probably people who think Keystone XL is more of a danger to humanity than al-qaeda. It would probably require a large terrorist attack on USA soil and a public more confident in the economy to get enough popular support for a renewed effort to fight terrorists abroad.

We recently had ISIS beheading Americans on camera with pocket knives on top of shitting/killing all over Iraq which was a huge investment over the past decade. The response is minimal relative to American might. Not enough public support. Iran has been more effective fighting ISIS and helping Iraq with a small fraction of the USA military budget and run by an unorganized and incompetent government. There is definitely more that can be done if there’s support for it, and we have not exhausted our options for fighting terrorism.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me, dear readers, what ended the 17th and 18th century scourge of piracy in the Caribbean (and elsewhere in many places for that matter)?

(Yes, there is a parallel)[/quote]

Colonial Navies in part and, more specifically, the rise of the U.S. Navy by the mid-1850s, IIRC.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[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.[/quote]

But here we’re comparing Al-Qaeda to the government of the most powerful nation on Earth. We are not Al-Qaeda’s rivals. Maybe if Russia carried out 9/11 it would make sense to bomb the Kremlin in response.

It’s not like we sat back after 9/11 happened. There isn’t anything remotely comparable to the twin towers that al-qaeda or the taliban controlled so we couldn’t respond symbolically, but we went in and waged war. Bombing the Kaaba in response to 9/11 would have been counter productive. The world wouldn’t be able to control the results of that action. [/quote]

You are right. Not saying I condone it, but I thought it.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
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. [/quote]

Hello Orion, I hope you’re doing well.

I don’t necessarily agree with you re: “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…”

Unfortunately for your position, Al-Qaeda doesn’t agree with you either. Bin-Laden authored 2 Fatawa, one in 1996 and the second in 1998 both calling for the murder of Americans. The first was called, “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”. The two Holy Places referred to are Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia as home of Mecca and Medina. We (America) neither invaded either country nor did we impose our social mores and political systems on them. We are, in fact, in SA at the invitation of their government, a fact which galls AQ to no end.[/quote]

If I remember things correctly, after the Russians backed out of Afghanistan and when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden or some other higher up in Al-Qaeda offered his terrorist and Taliban forces to the Saudi government to help drive Saddam out of Kuwait. The Saudis refused his help and invited the US in to do the job. That’s what pissed OBL off.

In hindsight, maybe we should have sent them in and let Saddam make mincemeat out of them.

[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]

Sadly, this is pinpoint accurate. This post needs to be required reading for all those who are advocating total war against the Muslim population. I guess it doesn’t occur to these guys it’s that’s how they would prefer to go out.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me, dear readers, what ended the 17th and 18th century scourge of piracy in the Caribbean (and elsewhere in many places for that matter)?

(Yes, there is a parallel)[/quote]

A raid on the Muslim pirates in Libya.

I believe a response like that is what George W. Bush wanted when he called for a “War on Terror”.

The problem is we have two incompatible value systems. How can we peaceful co-exist? I don’t have a clue. I pray the President knows.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me, dear readers, what ended the 17th and 18th century scourge of piracy in the Caribbean (and elsewhere in many places for that matter)?

(Yes, there is a parallel)[/quote]

A raid on the Muslim pirates in Libya.[/quote]

This in part ended one of the Barbary wars in North Africa.

Were the “Pirates of the Caribbean” Muslims? Jack Sparrow and his crew drank an awful lot of rum for a Muslim, at least in the Johnny Depp version.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.