drawscore wrote:Now, do I condone this? No, but I do understand it.
drawscore wrote:Unfortunately, the only thing the jihadists will understand and respect, is violence greater than what they do to their victims.
Drawscore
wataru14 wrote:I would gladly stoop to anyone's level if it were effective. Unfortunately, doing that doesn't work.
drawscore wrote:I think I would have qualms about coming down to that level. However, if I am in charge, I will tell my subordinate commanders to do whatever they think is necessary, to eliminate the threat, and that I would take the heat.
The fact remains, that the jihadists understand and respect force, and to stop them, you have to use more force on them, than they use on us. Sometimes considerably more force, and sometimes, in a way that offends the sensibilities of even conservatives.
Drawscore
drawscore wrote:The fact remains, that the jihadists understand and respect force, and to stop them, you have to use more force on them, than they use on us.
Jason Toddman wrote:That's been common practice in the Middle East since centuries before Christ. Was common practice in Europe too once upon a time. It doesn't work. Never has. Never will. Atrocities simply bring even more and even greater atrocities. A world run by such rules wouldn't be worth living in. How the hell do you think terrorism got so out of control in the first place?
drawscore wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But Air Force General Curtis LeMay did make a good point, when he said "If you kill enough of them, they'll quit fighting."
The bottom line, is that being nice to the jihadists is not going to work, either. And sanctions have not seemed to have an effect, either. How do you propose we stop the terrorists?
Drawscore
drawscore wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But Air Force General Curtis LeMay did make a good point, when he said "If you kill enough of them, they'll quit fighting."
drawscore wrote:The bottom line, is that being nice to the jihadists is not going to work, either.
drawscore wrote: And sanctions have not seemed to have an effect, either.
drawscore wrote:I think I would have qualms about coming down to that level. However, if I am in charge, I will tell my subordinate commanders to do whatever they think is necessary, to eliminate the threat, and that I would take the heat.
The fact remains, that the jihadists understand and respect force, and to stop them, you have to use more force on them, than they use on us. Sometimes considerably more force, and sometimes, in a way that offends the sensibilities of even conservatives.
Drawscore
Jason Toddman wrote:You are inordinately fond of quoting old warhawks, aren't you? I suppose you idolize those guys who said "Kill them all and let God sort them out" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" as well.
And it's been said to you before; no one says be nice to the Jihadists. Far from it. But what you are advocating - and what has been actually done all too often - is punish Muslims indiscriminately; assuming guilt in anyone Muslim rather than concentrating on wiping out the extremists that are the real enemy. Despite what people like Trump like to think, only a tiny minority of Muslims have been radicalized to the point where they are a danger to us. A much greater proportion may hate us over there, but considering our actions in the middle east and elsewhere (including supporting Israel's brutal repression on the Palestinians - a classic example of your way of thinking only making a bad situation worse right there), who the hell can blame them? Our own policies led directly to the extremism and hate we have to fight now. It's most likely thanks to Bush creating a power vacuum in Iraq for instance that ISIS was able to get started in the first place. Saddam was a thug it's true, but he liked terrorists no better than we do, as they would have been a threat to his own power. We're seeing the same thing in Syria now; naturally Assad is detestable, but look at the instability in the region now that his hold on the country is threatened. By interfering, we only made a bad situation much worse.
When we do find a legitimate target, we tend to bomb the area indiscriminately and ignore civilian casualties. That's winning us no friends either.
And people like trump worsen the situation even more with their hateful rhetoric. I bet he even supports the decision to hold all Japanese Americans in concentration camps for the duration of WW II; an utterly despicable and racist move especially considering that no one considered doing the same to German Americans. Assuming guilt just because of one's religion is as wrong as doing so based on race; also still a major problem today and related since most Muslims are (considered) non-white.
I've noticed for a long time that the extreme elements of the GOP has been on the slippery slope towards Nazism (Godwin's Law be damned; it assumes it cannot happen again but it most assuredly can and IS happening again; at least as much as 21st century society allows), and with Trump it's definitely slipping and sliding faster in that direction. As far as i'm concerned that's making us too much like the people we abhor, and it alarms me.
drawscore wrote:All that, and you still did not answer the question. So, one more time: How do you propose to stop the jihadists?
Drawscore
drawscore wrote:All that, and you still did not answer the question. So, one more time: How do you propose to stop the jihadists?
Drawscore
Jason Toddman wrote:drawscore wrote:All that, and you still did not answer the question. So, one more time: How do you propose to stop the jihadists?
Drawscore
Someone asked you the same question and you have yet to answer. So why should I answer your obviously loaded question?
I never claimed to be an expert on dealing with terrorists. I just know that the way we've been going about it isn't the right way to go about it.
________Tornado_________ wrote: I totally agree Jason. Bombing towns of innocent people just destroys their lives and kills their families. We make it so the citizens of Terrorism affected areas under bombing threat have nothing to lose, therefore creating more potential threats.
Jason Toddman wrote:Someone asked you the same question and you have yet to answer. So why should I answer your obviously loaded question?
I never claimed to be an expert on dealing with terrorists. I just know that the way we've been going about it isn't the right way to go about it.
Chris12 wrote:
Defeat them where possible and strengthen local governments to help with that. With enough defeats and setback a gang of psychopaths is sure to fall prey to infighting and decay.With how they treat their subjects its not unlikely they revolt when IS becomes weak enough. IS has no allies, has all the world powers against it and is staffed by lunatics. Eventually they will collapse. Its already starting. IS has been staging more terrorist attacks lately but that is in part to distract themselves and their enemies that it just isn't going well in their home theater.
Being ruthless can serve to scare an enemy but more often it just strengthens their resolve. Indiscriminate ruthlessness backfires because you make yourself more hated by more people and give your existing enemies all the more reason to fight you. Ruthlessness can work in certain doses but only in moderation. A policy of brutality leads to more resistance rather the less. History is filled with such example and the future shall be as well.
Besides this is not the age of ruthlessness any more. With Social media such things will be exposed instantly. This will lead to protest at home or even investigation for war crimes. That may be soft but its the world of today. Its not worth it to damage your enemy because it strengthens them and its not worth it for other positive results either because when found out its a danger to those who performed the act and those who commanded them, possibly even up to the very top. Its not worth it.
Those examples listen are almost all pre WWII examples right? You could do that in those days. Western nations paid less attention by morals and no one had the ability to immediately share the grisly scene with the world at large. Times have changed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the topic has been derailed long enough so I'l make a contribution that's on topic. Its still terrible but apparently the attack was performed REALLY clumsy. They attacked a movie theater when it was almost empty, they went to a starbux that wasn't very crowded either and then they attacked a police station and got shot. Those were some incompetent terrorists.
drawscore wrote: First, you don't justify "bad behavior" on your part, by pointing to "bad behavior" on my part. (and vice versa)
drawscore wrote:Second, I never claimed to want to kill civilians. If you would like to talk about the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians/non-combatants, talk about World War II. It was done by both the Allies, and the Axis. Drawscore
drawscore wrote:Third, I did advocate bombing and killing terrorists. With drone, stealth, and smart bomb technology, pinpoint accuracy is quite possible, and has already been shown on cable news outlets, ranging from the ultra liberal MSNBC, to the untra conservative The Blaze." Will "collateral damage" occur? Probably, but with that technology, we're not bombing the shit out of London, as the Nazis did, or Dresden, as the Allies did. Still, collateral damage is something to be avoided, if at all possible. When it does occur, it is regrettable. It could also be more easily avoided, if the jihadists would not set up their field headquarters in or near hospitals and schools. Drawscore
drawscore wrote:Second, I never claimed to want to kill civilians. If you would like to talk about the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians/non-combatants
drawscore wrote:Third, I did advocate bombing and killing terrorists. With drone, stealth, and smart bomb technology, pinpoint accuracy is quite possible