You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
When you respond to terrorism with massive amounts of violence, it tends to lower the chances of future terrorism.
I agree with some of what you posted but not this. WWII is perfect proof of that - did bombing civilians in The Battle of Britain work out? No. It may have small term positive gains that you can exploit if total victory is well within reach, but usually it brings new resolve from the enemy and wins them sympathy and allies.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Wrong. If you had to pick body parts of your loved ones off the ground on a regular basis, how would you feel about that?
Lets say your mom, dad, uncle, and aunts were in that German nightclub in 1986. You're presented two options...
Giving the approval for airstrikes that you know is going to get its point across.
Appeasing them and doing nothing.
I'll take the first choice so it prevents it happening in the future. Libya stopped fucking with us because Gaddafi didn't want Reagan killing any more of his kids. These terrorists think its all fun and games until you take it to them personally. Then its not so much fun anymore. I wonder why?
When you choose appeasement, it leads to WTC 93, USS Cole bombing, Kobalt Towers, 9/11,etc. When you give them a taste of their own medicine, they either climb back in the hole they came from or die.
I'll take Reagan's handling of Libya over Clinton's handling of Afghanistan and elements of Al Queda in Saudi Arabia any day of the week.
I agree with some of what you posted but not this. WWII is perfect proof of that - did bombing civilians in The Battle of Britain work out? No. It may have small term positive gains that you can exploit if total victory is well within reach, but usually it brings new resolve from the enemy and wins them sympathy and allies
We fire bombed Tokyo killing thousands of civilians, and then the cherry on top was a couple radiation baths. Forced the Nazis to dig the mass graves to bury all those dead people littered throughout the camps, then murdered most of them.
How many wars Japan and Germany been in since World War II?
Iraq was a threat to fuck all, nothing was found because nothing was there! The country had been on its knees for years before the invasion and prior to that the biggest export of radicalsim and terrorism was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, fucking allies of the west.
Show me examples of this Iraqi terrorist threat Bush spoke of please and show me Iraqi terrorists striking on western soil, ever.Iraq had never been an export of terrorists prior to the invasion, and the reason for the invasion was because of Saddam allegedly harbouring "weapons of mass destruction". He did have them at one time, because we fucking sold them to him, but they were destroyed by the UN in the years following the first Gulf War.
There is a reason so many heads have rolled since that invasion and that because so much of the apparent evidence to support the claims has since been proved to have been fabricated, or at best, exagerated.
Now I do agree with this. They had no WMD. You don't go from supposedly having enough anthrax to kill the world 5 times to not even one trace being found in a lab. That dog doesn't hunt.
Like you said, he had them but clearly lost them in that massive bombing campaign in 1991. He may have even had nukes(or the material for it anyways) but lost it as well.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Your assuming terrorists have a base, a country and somewhere you can target them.
This is the terrorism threat of today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/ … efault.stm
British citizens bombing other British citizens, who are you going to drop a bomb on to stop this?
Why do you think they decided to blow themselves up? In retaliation for the hundreds of thousands of civillians that have been blown to pieces since "The Coalition" decided to liberate the people of Iraq from the "evil Saddam Hussain".
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Your assuming terrorists have a base, a country and somewhere you can target them.
No, I'm not assuming that. When they have a base, you bomb it. When they have a country, you bomb it. When they don't, you send the order in to the Navy Seals, Delta Force, and the CIA Task Forces to go in quietly and murder them.
For some reason they stop dancing in the streets celebrating the deaths of americans when a Navy Seal is cutting their throats.
Why is that? Shouldn't they still be celebrating since terror is being implemented?
British citizens bombing other British citizens, who are you going to drop a bomb on to stop this?
You're not gonna drop a bomb. When you get a decent leader over there, you'll send in a few death squads to take care of that.
Why do you think they decided to blow themselves up?
My favorite question. Clinton spent 8 years wondering about this, and all we got to show for it was body bags filled with americans and shitloads of happy terrorists. I don't care why they do it, and neither did a world leader like Reagan. All that matters is doing all things necessary to stop them. When you murder them, they start looking for other targets.
When Chechen rebels murdered over a hundred russian school children, did Putin sit around asking why? No, he retaliated, and guess what? No more school bombings.
In retaliation for the hundreds of thousands of civillians that have been blown to pieces since "The Coalition" decided to liberate the people of Iraq from the "evil Saddam Hussain".
Terrorism has been a problem looooooooooong before the Iraq invasion. If that occupation is fueling terrorists, then its time to send more troops in and also resume air strikes.
There's a great quote about terrorists, but I don't remember who said it....
Terrorists don't want a seat at the table. They want to murder those sitting at the table.
Yet you want to negotiate with these people?
This is the ONLY thing Bush was right on the money with. You don't coddle these fuckers and make their lives an episode of Sesame Street. You destroy them, and if they want an extra dose of destruction, you give it to them until they stop wanting it.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Sorry James, thats a lot of wishful thinking. Cutting the throats of people dancing in the streets? Sending in goverment sanctioned death squads to kill the baddies? The last terrorists to strike in Britain were doctors quietly working away in hospitals, doing a public sevice to the country. You are going blaze in there and slaughter these doctors, you had no idea were actually terrorists?
What about Northern Ireland? Nearly a hundred years of tit for tat killings and bombings, including your favoured death sqauds - the begining of the end only happened when both sides agreed "enough killing, lets talk."
I'm not saying the way to stop islamic terrosits, or any others is to negotiate. I dont have the answers, its far to complex for simple solutions.
You said:
"When you respond to terrorism with massive amounts of violence, it tends to lower the chances of future terrorism."
I'm saying, it does not, in my opinion it only increases it.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Sorry James, thats a lot of wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking? Thank God for that wishful thinking in the 80s. Only two terrorist attacks directed at Americans on Reagan's watch, and they dropped to zero when he retaliated. No wishful thinking in the 90s, and there were terror attacks directed at americans every single year. More wishful thinking after 9/11, and no more terror attacks since. Russia likes wishful thinking as well, and they've also went a few years without a terrorist attack.
The only time terrorism is allowed to thrive is when fantasies of negotiating with them and/or appeasing them are put in place. Hell, Kerry wanted terrorism to became a legal issue. Not sure about you, but I'd prefer our military killing these people over the FBI praying they can find one, then sending them to Judge Judy while praying for a verdict.
Bill Clinton is a terrorist's wet dream. Bush, faults and all, is a terrorist's worst nightmare. On Clinton's watch, you could murder 19 year old soldiers by the dozens and not have to worry about anything. Do it while Bush or Putin was in there, your entire family was buried in rubble.
The last terrorists to strike in Britain were doctors quietly working away in hospitals, doing a public sevice to the country. You are going blaze in there and slaughter these doctors, you had no idea were actually terrorists?
When you find out they're terrorists, of course you kill them. Or do you want more deaths? You have to choose whether you want "normal" people dead, or you want terrorists dead. There's no middle ground. Scratch that, there is a middle ground, and that middle ground leads to New York, London, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo,etc. being nuclear or chemical infernos.
What about Northern Ireland? Nearly a hundred years of tit for tat killings and bombings, including your favoured death sqauds - the begining of the end only happened when both sides agreed "enough killing, lets talk."
You don't think violence played a role in bringing those tensions down? Imagine that situation without death squads and the use of force. A deterrent was put in place, and somebody in that situation wised up. It basically came down to "do we want to be murdered, or do we want to live?', which is the point I'm trying to make.
While I would never make light of any terrorism as terrorism in general is pure evil, the issue with Northern Ireland is apples and oranges when comparing it to islamic terrorism. Both are fueled by entirely different things.
its far to complex for simple solutions.
We already know when looking at terrorism by the decade that when the US places mass murder on the table as the response to terrorists, it drops the rate of terror attacks about 99.9%.
Simple solutions work. Its when you veer away from those simple solutions that they become emboldened because they know there's no consequences to their actions.
I'm saying, it does not, in my opinion it only increases it.
I have yet to see terrorism increase when the Unites States responds to it using force.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Before I go, I'd like to present a scenario to you. Look forward to reading your response when I get home.
There is a wave of terrorist attacks in London where 20 groups of terrorists go to shopping malls and with AK-47s, mow down hundreds of innocent civilians. Within 48 hours of this attack, schools are targeted by another group of terrorists, killing hundreds of children. The very next day, some terrorist group takes credit for these attacks.
You're the Prime Minister. What is your response?
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Ha! Nice try to complicate it, but I've already told you I dont have the answers 
I'm pointing out your method doesnt work, by your logic terrorist attacks against Israel should have ceased decades ago when they first went into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and massacred part of the population.
Or is that different terrorism to your terrorism?
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
There are different types of "terrorism" and what James refers to works with one type, but not on the group that believes it is fighting for freedom in what they consider to be their homeland. So you are both right, but under different circumstances.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Wishful thinking? Thank God for that wishful thinking in the 80s. Only two terrorist attacks directed at Americans on Reagan's watch, and they dropped to zero when he retaliated. No wishful thinking in the 90s, and there were terror attacks directed at americans every single year. More wishful thinking after 9/11, and no more terror attacks since. Russia likes wishful thinking as well, and they've also went a few years without a terrorist attack.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. In the 90's IIRC the only domestic attack was the Empire State building of 93. (The Okla City bombing was a different kind of terrorist which I believe we're not referring to, yet if you do include them, you'd have to include the 2002 Anthrax attacks under Bush). So if you're counting overseas terrorist attacks, you'll need to include the suicide bombers & insurgents in Iraq & Afghan killing innocent soldiers at checkpoints & the military escorts of the oil trucks. Which I'm sure greatly outnumbers those from the 90's.
As for the original topic, I say just declare it a warzone & recommend all small ship boaters to evacuate in 48 hours, after that, maintain the rights to shoot little boats down if their occupants look suspicious. I don't know if that's fully legal, but I'm sure something like that could be done. RF's in the Navy I think, he would know.
