Foreign Policy Question

[willstrickland]

Ok erudite policy wonks, riddle me this:

 

Groups that openly support and commit terrorism, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc often have public marches, rallys, and the like. Judging from the media coverage they receive, it isn't difficult to know beforehand that these event will take place.

 

In such an event, these terrorists and their supporters are gathered in one convenient place. Why does the "war on terror" not include sending cruise missiles, sidewinders, or clusterbombs into these gatherings? Call it one stop shopping for terrorist executions. Seems logical to me. Airspace? We have stealth for the planes and cruise missles with very long range.

 

Israel utilizes a similar approach in using helicopter gunships to attack leaders of these groups in their homes, cars, etc. Since we obviously won't be cutting ties with Israel (unfortunately IMO), why not either adopt similar tactics or encourage them to expand their attacks to gatherings such as these? Seems like basic economics, kill 1000 shitheads with one missile with no US causualties, or spend billions of dollars giving lip service to fighting terrorism and pursuing peripheral goals.

[scott_harpell]

Well, 1000 terrorists, and 3,000 civillians dead while the cameras are rolling. That is the kicker... the camera is rolling.

[catbirdseat]

Number one, a rally is a political statement. You'd rather have them making political statements than killing people.

 

Second, the terrorists themselves are a minority at these rallys. Most of the people there are relative innocents, including women and children.

[rbw1966]

I march in support of organized labor. Does this make me a union member? Nope.

[willstrickland]

"I want to kill you infidel!" is a political statement? These people are not carrying signs that say "Equal rights for women" or "Share the oil wealth".

 

How do you differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist? If you are at a rally, calling for death to infidels, you are supporting the cause. Is only the person carrying out the actual terrorist act a terrorist? Where do you draw the line? Is someone who plans an attack not a terrorist? One who gives monetary support?

 

If you're there, you're part of the problem. Roast their ass.

[RuMR]

Ok erudite policy wonks, riddle me this:

 

Groups that openly support and commit terrorism, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc often have public marches, rallys, and the like. Judging from the media coverage they receive, it isn't difficult to know beforehand that these event will take place.

 

In such an event, these terrorists and their supporters are gathered in one convenient place. Why does the "war on terror" not include sending cruise missiles, sidewinders, or clusterbombs into these gatherings? Call it one stop shopping for terrorist executions. Seems logical to me. Airspace? We have stealth for the planes and cruise missles with very long range.

 

Israel utilizes a similar approach in using helicopter gunships to attack leaders of these groups in their homes, cars, etc. Since we obviously won't be cutting ties with Israel (unfortunately IMO), why not either adopt similar tactics or encourage them to expand their attacks to gatherings such as these? Seems like basic economics, kill 1000 shitheads with one missile with no US causualties, or spend billions of dollars giving lip service to fighting terrorism and pursuing peripheral goals.

Come on will, you dumb ass...a sidewinder is to knock out an aircraft...duh...

 

sure would be a good place to make a few possible key arrests if you ask for me...nuking the crowds though? dunno about that...

[sexual_chocolate]

"I want to kill you infidel!" is a political statement? These people are not carrying signs that say "Equal rights for women" or "Share the oil wealth".

 

How do you differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist? If you are at a rally, calling for death to infidels, you are supporting the cause. Is only the person carrying out the actual terrorist act a terrorist? Where do you draw the line? Is someone who plans an attack not a terrorist? One who gives monetary support?

 

If you're there, you're part of the problem. Roast their ass.

 

You're one casualty I wouldn't shed any tears over in a "terrorist" attack.

 

Actually, I take that back; your ignorance must be forgiven, since it's of the most pitiable kind.

[RuMR]

welcome back holmes!!

[sexual_chocolate]

thanks yo. back for my quarterly rant session!

[RuMR]

lets join forces and kick greggie-poo's butt politically!!

[willstrickland]

Yeah RUMR, sidewinder is air to air heat seeker, should have said AGM 130, AGM 142, or AGM 154...have a little BBQ for Allah, terrorist kababs.

[willstrickland]

You're one casualty I wouldn't shed any tears over in a "terrorist" attack.

 

Actually, I take that back; your ignorance must be forgiven, since it's of the most pitiable kind.

 

Now Cocoa, I didn't insult you, behave yourself. Shouldn't you be off moondancing somewhere?

[willstrickland]

I march in support of organized labor. Does this make me a union member? Nope.

 

Do you carry an AK-47 at your union rallys?

[lummox]

#1 show in saudi arabia: baywatch. we are winning the war on terrorism.

[rbw1966]

Do all the marchers at the terrorist rallys carry AK-47s?

 

Your rant is weak. By logical extension of your argument we are all terrorists since our government has engaged in terrorist activities and by virtue of our very presence in this country we are supporting our government.

[stinkyclimber]

#1 show in saudi arabia: baywatch. we are winning the war on terrorism.

Not THAT'S a funny one! The US Administration's continued support of the Saudi regime is losing the so-called war on terror. Saudi Arabia continues to fund terror groups through a large number of phony Islamic charities. The close ties between Bushies and the Saudi's is an interesting one...

 

Maybe cutting off their Baywatch would help? Too much Baywatch would make me want to blow shit up too.

 

Cutting off Baywatch is easier than murdering a bunch of demonstrators with missles.

[willstrickland]

Do all the marchers at the terrorist rallys carry AK-47s?

 

Your rant is weak. By logical extension of your argument we are all terrorists since our government has engaged in terrorist activities and by virtue of our very presence in this country we are supporting our government.

 

My rant may be weak, but your logic is weaker. Active participation and passive association are quite different. Living in a neighborhood where a rally takes place is one thing, joining the rally and advocating terrorist acts is quite another.Two points for an attempt, no points for substance. Try again.

[rbw1966]

Voting is active participation. Paying taxes is active participation. Nothing passive about it.

 

Advocating terrorism is one thing; actively participating is quite another. Just ask Craig Rosbraugh or the FBI.

[j_b]

if your purpose is to be more isolated than we already are, i suggest you go ahead with your scheme. international sales of major us corporations are already feeling the backlash from our iraq venture, so ...

[willstrickland]

Not talking about Iraq j_b, but nice try for a diversion. Surely you would be the first to admit that a link between Iraq and the major terrorist players is tenuous at best, and most likely non-existent beyond the fact that they have arrived on the scene in Iraq for the easy pickings on US targets.

 

 

RBW, I ask again, where do you draw the line? Is financing an act of terrorism participation or advocation? Is providing planning, logistical support, moral support, or anything other than pushing the button on a detonator terrorism or advocating terrorism?

 

I did not vote for the current administration. I also joined demonstrators opposing our invasion of Iraq. But by your argument I've been actively supporting those policies and actions of our government's that you equate with terrorism simply because I pay my taxes and vote...even though I vote against such policies and actions?.

 

[rbw1966]

Thats my point Will. Its not black & white. Just because someone is participating in a rally, parade or whatever doesn't automatically brand them as a terrorist.

[willstrickland]

[arlen]

There are a whole spectrum of people who take part in public demonstrations against Israeli policy, and they include a few American citizens who can criticize islamist terrorism more cogently than any of us spraymonkeys.

 

Prolly the only reason a radical terrorist would show up at a rally is the chance that such an attack as you describe would kill innocent folks, thus furthering their ultimate goal of whipping up ordinarily reasonable people into a blind rage.

[j_b]

true enough will. my point was that eventually you would have to consider public opinion. i guess it wasn't very constructive toward your riddle.

 

well said arlen

[willstrickland]

The intention of the original post was to draw out some opinions on Israel's approach at dealing with terrorist groups such as firing missiles at them where invariably innocents will be killed.

 

This week in the Gaza offensive the Israelis fired a missle that killed a couple of kids and one or two militants. I don't really disagree with their assasination style targeting of leaders of these groups, but the recent move was a step away from their usual approach of acting on intelligence to hit them when they are isolated from the innocents, such as the strikes they've made on vehicles carrying Hamas leaders. I see the next step they might take as what I described...firing missles into crowds at rallys etc.