JOEBIALEK Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do? The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism. Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Troll, troll, go away come again another day google results for JOEBIALEK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 If it is a troll, it is a worthy one. Though they be but few, Joe puts quite a lot of effort into his posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Did you even look at OW's link?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 (edited) Yep. Digging around I found that this person is posting identical or nearly identical missives on multiple message boards. Terrorism Edited May 30, 2004 by catbirdseat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 SPAM BOT!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Uh... killing the innocent families of terror suspects might not be a good idea. Reckon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 the innocent families of terror suspects Some think that might be an oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Perhaps "suspects" is the key word there cheif? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Perhaps "suspects" is the key word there cheif? Well... if'n we wanna get all perticyooler... spambot never said terror suspects, but rather terrorists period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 If my deranged uncle goes and kills a bunch of people, I'd rather not be targeted, thank you. But I will concede that I'm sure a lot of these people's familys are likeminded and I'd rather see their spawn dead than alive to avenge their father's death or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Even Israel doesn't kill suspected terrorists' families (they just bulldoze their houses). But I get the impression listening to Dubya that the U.S. is trying to represent itself as taking the "high road." I realize that the rest of the world finds this to be laughable... If it got out that US policy was to kill the families of terror suspects, we would be condemned by the rest of the world. Rightfully so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Well... if'n we wanna get all perticyooler... spambot never said terror suspects, but rather terrorists period. Yes, but the point is, he also said: Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. So, he's advocating killing innocent people. WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 I have heard that Syria has in the past made reprisals against the family members of coup plotters. Morrocco has done this also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Uhm... I have no problem with people who knowingly harbour terrorists (kin or not) to get the same treatment as their terrorist family members. What is the difference if they are helping to kill people or they are actually doing it? Not much if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 OK ...your "knowingly harbour[ing] terrorists" sounds a bit more complicitous that Spambot's "innocent families." These days, however, I'm getting tired of war. I just feel that if we keep killing and manufacturing weapons and maintaining a posture of arrogance in our foreign policy, we're just going to keep getting attacked. Security analysts now are saying that our terror fighting efforts since 9/11 have increased rather than decreased terrorism, and we've dispersed the terrorists away from Afghanistan without compromising much their ability to act. So I don't agree with Spambot. And Bush and Dumsfeld and their crew have made a bad situation worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 You solution then is what? Canada? Israel? France? There will always be terrorists. The question is... whether there will be people to fight them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 You solution then is what? 1. Provide positive leadership in the world. Lead the way in promoting political and economic justice for all people. Lead the way to a sustainable relationship with our environment. 2. Stop exporting terrorism like we did in Central America. Shut down the School of the Americas right away. 3. I don't know what to do about Israel. 4. Even though steps 1 and 2 won't necessarily change the minds and motives of the current generation of terrorists, I'd bet they'd go a long way toward improving the rest of the world's view of the US, which would be a big help. Security is an illusion. Even though I'll be voting for Kerry in November, I really like the basic platform of the Green Party --called their " Ten Key Values ." In terms of politics, I think their prescription makes a great deal of sense. I wouldn't waste my vote on a Green candidate for president (like Nader four years ago), but would rather like to see the Green Party built up on a base of local and state officeholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Provide positive leadership in the world. ...and how are you going to do this without a military? Another bolshevik revolution? So... your steps are... make the baddies go away... with magic... ignore the middle east conflict and assume that the religious issues that have been present for the last 1,000 years will vanish? Hmm... I think you might wanna tweak that a bit before running for president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 how are you going to do this without a military? Magic might work better than the current approach, which doesn't seem to be working. I didn't say I wouldn't have a military (I served in the Army Infantry between 1975 and 1979) or ignore the Middle East conflict, and I'm certainly not interested in running for president. My proposal has more to do with action than reaction. So what would you propose as a solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hmm-hmm...dum de dum dum...hmm-hmm, hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.