Terrorist Strategy: Bottom Line - Page 2

bluebullet · 09-22-2004, 09:22 PM

well..I was readin the news paper and the leader guy of the zarqwi or however it is spelled is not a negotiator..hes one of those extreme islam dudes who is so extreme, if his followers are caught reading anything else except the Koran they get beaten.

He doesnt negotiate, or can be forced to negotiate. The only way to change things is to fight him and kill him. Let him die..once someone realizes that his leader isnt so powerful....they just might back down..

yet its hard to resist those 72 virgins up in heaven

life must be dam hard over there if you want the easy way out to commit suicide to have imaginary sex in spirit...

Superman · 09-23-2004, 12:56 PM

Okay, so it sounds like no one here really believes we will be able to exterminate the bad guys. It also seems as though folks here believe we will not scare the terrorists into not attacking.

I'm not sure we're really damaging them much at all. If terrorists swarmed into Iraq once the invasion began, as we heard, then they did this just to have some fun. If I were a terrorist leader, I'd let the Americans battle the insurgents (who are not terrorists, but rather are nationalists who feel like they are defending their homeland) and stay out of it. Americans killing Muslims is only going to make marketing easier for the real terrorists who, I would suspect, are safe somewhere outside Iraq.

So, if all this is the case, if the bad guys are doing what strikes me ast the smart thing, then how do we stop terrorism?

RoninLB · 09-23-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman

So, if all this is the case, if the bad guys are doing what strikes me ast the smart thing, then how do we stop terrorism?

as per a previous post.. small team search and destroy. It's happening now in Afag right now. No political problems, no news coverage, no acknowledgement.

Muslem leader unwitting conspirators and their schools is a political problem.

vash · vash's Garage

ok, i am in.
you cant scare a terrorist, so given those two choices, i pick #1. kill them. but maybe not only in the sense of ending lives. osama is apparently a rich guy, kill him financially, and i bet he makes alot less noise. turn him poor.

Superman · 09-23-2004, 01:31 PM

I can agree with that. The model for this was played out in front of a world audience and many were watching when it happened, though there were no stories. After the Munich Olympics murders (was it 1972?) the Israeli Mossad simply hunted those guys down, one by one, and shot them where they were found. Sleeping. Getting into their cars. Smoking cigarettes on the sidewalk. One minute everything's fine, the next minute there's brains all over the wall. Terrorists should understand that this is how it ends. Quietly. at four in the morning.

Also, supporting responsible Muslim governments seems like a good idea. In fact, they can probably effect the best kind of change more easily than any other kind of leader. And how 'bout those angry ME youths who have, and whose moms have, unreliable running water, electricity, no jobs, no hope.....? Would it make sense to improve his situation? Job, money and water for mom, etc.

And how about education? Think education could make a difference?

problem is, I have not heard these ideas from the current "administration." I'm sure they're a lot smarter than I am, so they know how the shooting of Iraqis helps us get closer to these goals. Plus, it makes Steve and others feel like we're "getting even."

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
problem is, I have not heard these ideas from the current "administration." I'm sure they're a lot smarter than I am, so they know how the shooting of Iraqis helps us get closer to these goals.

Now here's a question for ya, Supe...

You say you "haven't heard these ideas from the current administration", and quite honestly, I don't believe I have either, specifically, but....is this because the current administration hasn't voiced these ideas, or is it because the media hasn't reported the administration having these ideas?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to turn this discussion in another direction, because I think we have stumbled acros some common ground that most of us seem to agree on. I'm just asking what I consider a valid question.

Randy

Superman · 09-23-2004, 02:48 PM

Yep, valid question. And yep, we're finding common ground. I'll answer your question this way: There are aspects of this Iraqui situation that could potentially make some sense. Once stabilized, like in twenty years or something, Iraq could prove to be a better world citizen than under Saddam. And it is good that we're prepared to help them with infrastructure.

but I'll also add this: The current administration has, and has had, every opportunity to outline its deeper strategy and if it had one, it would have. And I think the notion that our actions there were for the purpose of fighting terrorism is a HUGE stretch, since nearly (except for a couple of guys here) everyone accepts that there were no terrorist organizations operating in Iraq under Saddam (no dictator would tolerate that). So, frankly, I have a personal belief that this war was declared for other purposes, and I further believe that Dubya was kinda rolling the dice in terms of outcomes. I think he felt that he would deal with situations as they arise. In other words, make it up as he went along. I think he's guilty of poor planning, just like he's guilty of not managing his information sources responsibly.

But I'm not trying to change the subject either. And I agree that we're getting to some of the roots of our beliefs, and finding the common ground we knew was there all along. Or at least, some knew.

flyenby · 09-23-2004, 07:29 PM

The solution is what they do SAW OFF THIER HEADS...............................

dtw · 09-23-2004, 07:59 PM

It's pretty scary when Supe starts saying stuff I can agree with. Supe, you're alright when you put aside the doubletalk and rhetoric.

I agree with the hunt/kill strategy. We need three things: Fear, Surprise, Ruthless Efficiency, and an almost fanatical...FOUR! There are FOUR things.

Hey I thought you were going to that thing this weekend. What are you still doing here.

Superman · 09-24-2004, 03:38 AM

Huh? I'm not going anywhere this weekend. Oh, and be careful about agreeing with me. There are those here who think I'm a cross between Satan and Mr. Magoo with my brains leaking out my ears. And if they think I generally favor much more socialism, they're right. So, be careful. My thinking's not supposed to make any sense whatsoever. Just trying to protect your reputation.

Mule · 09-24-2004, 05:21 AM

I've been saying this since day one & it still holds true. No need to kill them all. We just need to kill them untll the bull***** stops. If we take fire from a building be it a mosque, apartment house, office complex or whatever, it should cease to exist. After you blow up enough mosques or apartments buildings, the people who dont want their ***** blown up will start to be more scared of us than they are of the terrorists & will co-operate, or possibly die. Either way works. Words dont matter to these people but force does.

Right now a good freind of mine is in Faloujah delivering greetings from America via a Marine Corps 155 howitzer. We are killing them at about 100 peace lovers to 1 American soldier. Apparently that is not enough to get the point across. Maybe 500 to 1 will do it. But if it takes 10,000 to 1 then thats what we need to do. We need to make them look at this like the old line about banging your head against the wall. The best thing about it is how good it feels when you stop.

Superman · 09-24-2004, 06:07 AM

So... Mule, it sounds like you believe we can scare the terrorists into not attacking us any more? That appears to be a minority opinion.

Tim Hancock · 09-24-2004, 06:10 AM

Mule, I think you have the best strategy. The part about leveling any building that shots are fired from. The Japanese nutcase leaders would have fought till the end in WW2 and huge numbers on both sides would have perished had we not launched massive fire bombings followed by the nukes. We need to use our troops and weapons that are over there to launch no holds barred type strikes whenever and wherever conflicts arise. Screw diplomacy and political correctness, these terrorist types will never be peacefully changed into nice guys. Massive unforgiving blows must be dealt to these barbarians. When these guys see news reports showing the US losing the stomach to finish this job, they are only emboldened.

Many of these guys have moved in from other countries to do battle with our troops. It seems that we have collected quite a few active terrorist types in one location. We need kill as many as we can while they have gathered here so nicely for us.

OK I'm done venting now.

Superman · 09-24-2004, 06:48 AM

Ummmm, Tim......You start out agreeing with Mule, but then you make this statement:

"these terrorist types will never be peacefully changed into nice guys."

Which is it? Do you think we can scare the terrorists into not attacking us any more? Or do you think we can exterminate them all?

Sure it's fun to shake your fist and talk tough and toss beer cans at the TV. But at the end of the day, what is our strategy/goal? Scare them into submission, or kill them all, or what? The choices are just those, outlined in the first post.

Tim Hancock · 09-24-2004, 07:14 AM

Kill as many as we can while they are congregated together in one area.

Can we scare them? I do not know if the word scare is quite appropriate.

If we can get to a point where a terrorist knows for certain, that if he commits one of these barbaric acts, the United States will respond immediately with a substantial barage of killing and destruction on all that he holds dearly, maybe he will think twice.

If the results of the terrorists actions bring the mighty US and Isreal to their knees begging for mercy, the terrorists win. If the US's fierce, unadulterated responses to terrorist acts cause massive losses to the terrorists, they may choose a less painful path.

So, eliminate as many as possible while they have gathered so nicely for us, then show them how painful their future endeavers will be.

By the way, I when on occasion I drink beer, I like it in bottles.

gaijinda · 09-24-2004, 07:53 AM

I see terrorists and terrorism as the tip of the spear.

Sure you have McVeigh like nuts, who pretty much act on their own. But the groups we face like al Quida, and now in Iraq the old baathist party and random sheiks with random militas and etc are pretty much the point men for larger groups with larger agendas.

This type of organized terrorism will stop when it is no longer and effective tool for getting what they want. When we are uncompromising that no ends will be met with such means (and when they stop giving Nobel "peace" prizes to people like Arafat), then this problem will diminish.

Part of this is holding any and all supporters of such acts as directly responsible. If this means 5000lbs GPS guided smart-bombs and deporting those that support such groups well so be it..

Tim Hancock · 09-24-2004, 07:59 AM

right on gaijinda, especially the part about terrorism being a tool to get them what they want.

Superman · 09-24-2004, 08:10 AM

We may just be quibbling about semantics. Instead of "scare," let's substitute a term like "intimidate." Either way, the question is the same. Do you support our military efforts because you believe that if we clobber them good enough, they will stop?

See, I'll warn you that many folks do not believe that. Many of us believe that military actions like our current efforts in Iraq are the real reason for their hatred of us, and the more we do it, the more determined existing terrorists will become, and the more new recruits they will receive. I'd further assert that young ideological men without running water or electricity, or education or hope, are simply going to fly off the handle when someone invades their country. This is just as predictable as kicking a beehive. Do we need to debate what the bees' reaction will be?

Tim Hancock · 09-24-2004, 08:30 AM

If we CONSISTENTLY pummel them for their efforts, eventually they will learn that only bad things come from their efforts (kind of like training a dog). The problem is that for too long we have been too wishy washy in our dealing with these animals. This crap has been happening for many years, not just since we removed Saddam. We can sit at home shaking and waiting for the next act of terrorism, or we say enough of this crap and do something about it. Either way, we will probably get hit again, but if we do nothing I can almost guarantee they will continue.

I do not kick bee hives I spray them from a safe distance with wasp and hornet spray till they are dead.

RoninLB · 09-24-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman

. Many of us believe that military actions like our current efforts in Iraq are the real reason for their hatred of us, and the more we do it, the more determined existing terrorists will become, and the more new recruits they will receive.

A failed gov't needs a common enemy to keep the population focused. Libya, Iran, etc must support the terrorists to prevent an ecomomically successful democracy next door in Iraq.

gaijinda words "This type of organized terrorism will stop when it is no longer and effective tool for getting what they want." means, imo, eliminate the local dictatorship fuel who will have no influence "for getting what they want".