224 replies to this topic

[The New Richard Nixon]

But its now religion not just invading

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

tapirmusic, on 10 September 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

http://news.yahoo.co...-144744825.html

anyone else notice that the supposed Number 2 guy in Al-Qaida is killed every 3 months or so?

Suspicious to me.

Sounds like it's bull****.

indeed. the interesting thing is that does it ever make the slightest difference to the supposed threat from this network of Evil? I mean, they topped the Boss a year ago, and, as you say, they off the No.2 with a Predator robostrike every couple of months, so surely they must have been defeated by now? Could it be that we can't actually defeat the network of Evil, because it's not structured in that way that taking out the High Command will make any difference? Or could it be that the Terror Threat exists primarily as a way for the governments of the Free World ™ to keep everyone in a state of Fear?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The New Richard Nixon, on 10 September 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

its the same with anything in reallife, get rid of someone, replace them, get rid, replace

And doesn't this suggest that the governments of the Free World having spent billions over the last ten years in order to Make the World a Safer Place ™, just hasn't worked, and never can?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 10 September 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

What do you propose as a solution Coffey?  Certainly can't sit idly by and just wait for the next attack to take place, right?

So carry on fighting (i.e. getting troops killed by 'improvised Explosive devices') for ever? Has it actually made the slightest difference to the terror threat at all?
What to do about the terror threat? Use intelligence and detective work, stop people getting alienated and radicalised in the West (where most of the Terror plots have actually originated), not blast random villages with missiles, thereby antagonising the people in the countries that one employs one's Overwhelming Military Might against, or send troops to be killed in unwinnable guerilla wars.

[tyrant lizard]

Coffey, on 10 September 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

That's exactly why the whole war on terror is the stupidist thing ever. It's completely pointless and just produces even more extremists with bigger vendettas against countries who have killed their families. Vicious circle.

Let's just let them get away with blowing all out things up then.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

tyrant lizard, on 11 September 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Let's just let them get away with blowing all out things up then.

Do you believe that blowing up random villages, and getting hundreds of our own troops killed by explosive devices, has prevented Terrorists from Killing people?

[Little Fish]

The New Richard Nixon, on 11 September 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

no that was completely different person, look him up

the guy you are thinking of may have been killed 2 years ago
but this guy was also killed two years ago

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Little Fish, on 11 September 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

the guy you are thinking of may have been killed 2 years ago
but this guy was also killed two years ago

I expect they probably found his passport to prove who he was.

[spud the mackem]

booNyzarC, on 10 September 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

What do you propose as a solution Coffey?  Certainly can't sit idly by and just wait for the next attack to take place, right?

Hi BooNyzarC, Well I suggest that we (U.S.A./U.K) should not interfere with other countries unless they specifically ask for help.We seem to have taken on the role of Worlds Policemen. Iraq is still infighting, and will continue to do so, The Afghani's just love to blast each other and have been doing for a 1000 yrs,and will continue long after we have gone.So whats the point of trying to change something thats hereditary ?. You dont see many other countries volunteering to get their lads killed. And spending Millions per day on a useless venture, when the money could be put to far better uses.I'm Not a Pacifist but I cant see any sense in this.Cheers

[tyrant lizard]

747400, on 11 September 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Do you believe that blowing up random villages, and getting hundreds of our own troops killed by explosive devices, has prevented Terrorists from Killing people?

Of course not. I'm sure you don't think they are blowing up random villages for no apparent reason. Surely there is intelligence behind the things they do? Hunting down the leadership and breaking up the infrastructure of terror cells will obviously reduce the terrorists chances of makng their plans.

I absolutely agree that when innocent people are hurt and killed, terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on your view point) will emerge from the populace and I know that it's like cutting off hydra's head, but something has to be done. Don't forget 9/11 happened before the war on terror, so the terrorists were hardly placated in the first place

[Coffey]

tyrant lizard, on 11 September 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

Of course not. I'm sure you don't think they are blowing up random villages for no apparent reason. Surely there is intelligence behind the things they do? Hunting down the leadership and breaking up the infrastructure of terror cells will obviously reduce the terrorists chances of makng their plans.

I absolutely agree that when innocent people are hurt and killed, terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on your view point) will emerge from the populace and I know that it's like cutting off hydra's head, but something has to be done. Don't forget 9/11 happened before the war on terror, so the terrorists were hardly placated in the first place

It doesn't help, it make sit worse. It's makes more fanatical and unstable extremists come out. It produces more terrorism. lol

9/11 happened after we invaded Iraq and After the Afghan pipeline was started. Both things annoyed a lot of people in Afghanistan.

Edited by Coffey, 11 September 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[tyrant lizard]

Coffey, on 11 September 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

It doesn't help, it make sit worse. It's makes more fanatical and unstable extremists come out. It produces more terrorism. lol

9/11 happened after we invaded Iraq and After the Afghan pipeline was started. Both things annoyed a lot of people in Afghanistan.

Then what is the alternative? Do you think we should let them get away with attacking our countries and civilians?

And Iraq was invaded in response to Kuwait being invaded

[Coffey]

tyrant lizard, on 11 September 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Then what is the alternative? Do you think we should let them get away with attacking our countries and civilians?

And Iraq was invaded in response to Kuwait being invaded

Iraq was invaded in response to Kuwaits oil reserves.

I said the alternative. You bump up security, it's all you can do. Blowing innocent civilians to bits is not the answer. It just makes it worse. Also who's fault is it really? The US trained them in the first place and gave them weapons. It was the US that turned them into a threat.

[tyrant lizard]

Coffey, on 11 September 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Iraq was invaded in response to Kuwaits oil reserves.

I said the alternative. You bump up security, it's all you can do. Blowing innocent civilians to bits is not the answer. It just makes it worse. Also who's fault is it really? The US trained them in the first place and gave them weapons. It was the US that turned them into a threat.

Yes and Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because of oil. I think it's in the west's interest to maintain some modicum of control over the oil in the Middle East. The price of a barrel of oil dictates the price of almost everything else.

And I know blowing up civilians is not the answer, but I think just sitting back and defending is a dangerous strategy, pretty soon someone's going to slip through the net. And before you know it the bus you're sitting on is getting blown up...

As to the Americans training them in the first place, check this out

 bin.jpg   154.33K   10 downloads

[The New Richard Nixon]

Remmeber sitting back or interfering too much could cause huge problems