Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat are you talking about? You need sources for a bit of common sense?
Invading Iraq was not "fighting back". It was diverting resources from the guys who actually attacked us. This is closer to "ignore them" than to "fight back".
Please reference your sources...or are you just making stuff up?
But you are right. Fight a terrorist and create a dozen. Can you tell me how NOT FIGHTING them eliminates them?
That was the point to the vacuous "we are creating terrorist" argument that you espoused previously.
In case you missed it, I was making fun of that stupid "leap of logic".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou really don't have a clue, do you?
That is about as dumb as I've ever heard.
Let's see.
Terrorists attack. We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We fight back and create terrorists.
And now we slap ourselves in the head and say "Boy! That was dumb! Look at all the terrorists we created."
The terrorists attack again.
So we don't fight back. We are quick learners.
So again they ...[text shortened]... the entire world are terrorists so they win.
Is that about right there adozenchildren?
Originally posted by lepomisNo.
Why dont we just give the terrorists everything that they want?... wouldnt that solve the problem???
Many terrorists want power too much.
Terrorists generally make very bad leaders.
Look at Israel a state where most of the leaders have been from terrorist organisations.
Capture terrorists, failing that kill them. The key is to give the people what they want, a future with hope.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour "common sense" is like Chicken Little's or those nutjobs who thought the world was going to end in the year 1000.
What are you talking about? You need sources for a bit of common sense?
But you are right. Fight a terrorist and create a dozen. Can you tell me how NOT FIGHTING them eliminates them?
That was the point to the vacuous "we are creating terrorist" argument that you espoused previously.
In case you missed it, I was making fun of that stupid "leap of logic".
But you are right. Fight a terrorist and create a dozen.
Where did I write that?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen you said...
Your "common sense" is like Chicken Little's or those nutjobs who thought the world was going to end in the year 1000.
But you are right. Fight a terrorist and create a dozen.
Where did I write that?
"There's an excellent chance they'd vote Republican, considering how much the Republicans have strengthened the terrorists."
Isn't your implication that "by fighting them, we have strengthened them"? It sure looks like it to me. If you meant that Republicans have strengthened them in SOME OTHER WAY... then what was it?
Pay attention. I realize that it was a while ago, but reminding you of what YOU say is tiresome.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI dont understand... we should try to capture or kill them? How do we know who to capture? Wouldnt that upset the others?
No.
Many terrorists want power too much.
Terrorists generally make very bad leaders.
Look at Israel a state where most of the leaders have been from terrorist organisations.
Capture terrorists, failing that kill them. The key is to give the people what they want, a future with hope.
Originally posted by lepomislepomis,
I dont understand... we should try to capture or kill them? How do we know who to capture? Wouldnt that upset the others?
No. He has a "special method" that will work. But we can't talk about it. It's all very hush hush. Loose lips sink ships and all that. Carry on.
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIsn't your implication that "by fighting them, we have strengthened them"?
When you said...
"There's an excellent chance they'd vote Republican, considering how much the Republicans have strengthened the terrorists."
Isn't your implication that "by fighting them, we have strengthened them"? It sure looks like it to me. If you meant that Republicans have strengthened them in SOME OTHER WAY... then what was it?
Pay attention. I realize that it was a while ago, but reminding you of what YOU say is tiresome.
No. By invading Iraq, we strengthened them.
Maybe you'd feel less fatigued if you actually reminded me of what I really said instead of making things up. I understand it strains your weak mind to have to use your imagination, so maybe you should stick with reality so you don't get a brain hernia or something.
Originally posted by lepomisCapture is best as then you can find out who to capture.
I dont understand... we should try to capture or kill them? How do we know who to capture? Wouldnt that upset the others?
Its all about intelligence, which is why it is difficult trying to explain it to people without any.
Originally posted by lepomisgood question.
Do you torture them?
You have to balance freedom with security and there is no definitive answer. It depends on the level of threat.
Unfortunately in the case of Bin Laden and co. the answer is yes.
Targetted assassinations as well.
However information by torture is notoriously unreliable. Much of the mafia was destroyed when the US started to persuade mobsters to change sides. This approach is preferrable.
We have to recognise that the terrorism we are dealing with is far more severe than say the IRA. These terrorists are prepared to kill large numbers, they are prepared to see they fellow comrades die and even kill innocent bystanders from their own side.
One of the main reasons we have to treat terrorists as criminals is that we have more options and can create our own laws without having to give them the right associated to prisoners of war.
However, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that the people carrying out these extraordinary powers are controlled at the highest levels with safeguards and resources that ensure a phenominal degree of accuracy.