The War on Terror

Insane Apache:
You could argue that the IRA have won by arms and by talking.

When Ireland went wholeheartedly (and democratically) for the idea of independence all sorts of crap broke out including a war with the British government forces and then a civil war in the Irish Free State about whether to let 6 counties of Ulster remain in the U.K.

Back then it didn't matter what a majority of the people of Ireland wanted because the majority of the people in the U.K. did not want an independent Ireland. Now it is just when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland want unification with Ireland they can have it. That's a big difference.

The IRA have been granted concession after concession to stop them going back to violence (even though at one point the British government told them that they weren't achieving anything as the British Army probably lost more soldiers in training at German bases than at the hands of the IRA). Admitedly, British troop reductions have not occurred at a similar level as agreed and the Loyalists haven't been forced to disarm either but that's besides the point.

Anyway, the IRA have basically destroyed the interest of almost all mainland U.K. residents in expending lives trying to maintain Northern Ireland as part of the U.K. Now it seems like a united Ireland is almost inevitable and nobody in the mainland really cares: a pretty big difference compared to the situation when all this trouble flared up again in the 60s.

You could almost call the Good Friday Agreement a negotiated surrender by both sides(but one had achieved a lot more than the other).


As for NorAid: they advertise themslevs as a charity more than as a lets-go-kill-us-some-Brits organisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

A historical side note:

Quote:

---

:
You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.

---

Which wars were those? Thanks..

---

Finland defeated Russia in 1917-8 and gained independence with the (after the fact) assitance of a sympathetic Germany.
(they were more or less a client state before then)

They went back to war with Rusisia/Soviet Union in 1939 when Stalin demanded Finnish territory and invaded Finland when his demand was refused.
(the Winter War).
Finland put every man under 60 into uniform and came up with 225,000 regulars,
men over 60 and women volunteers formed the "civic defence forces" (200,000).
"Civic" in name only, they fought alongside the regulars in the front lines.

Finlands airforce was 200 planes of many and varied types - they accounted for over 900 Soviet aircraft despite always being short of spares.
Finnish forces fought against overwhelming odds, Finnish companies defended against Soviet battalions, Finnish battalions defended against Soviet divisions and Finnish divisions fought against Soviet army formations (around 6 to 12 divisions).

Finland suffered some 75,000 casualties (almost 20% of her armed forces)
Stalin lost somewhere around a million men before he gave up and called a truce. (incidently that was around 30% of his entire army at that time)
(Stalin had captured about half the territory he had demanded)
Not one nation lifted a finger to help the Finns, though several thousand volunteers from Denmark, Estonia and Sweden (and others) joined the Finnish army.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Soviet losses to the Finns contributed to Stalins rapid modernisation of the Soviet Army, which was well under way when the Germans invaded the USSR in 1941 - Hitler should have supported the Finns in 1939!

In 1941 Finland went back to war with the Soviets for the THIRD time as partners of the German Axis, (the Continuation War) recapturing the territory lost in 1939. The Germans were preaching the invasion of Russia as a Christian crusade against an Atheist Nation.

When it was obvious the Axis were losing the war they put out feelers to Stalin asking for terms, his terms were reasonable, hand over all terrirtory they had lost to the Soviets in 1939 and expel the German forces in Finland.
Finland complied (the Arctic War) and Stalin, remembering the horrific losses his forces suffered in his invasion of Finland in 1939, honoured the agreement.

So Finland actually fought the Russians/Soviets three times, once victoriuos, once fought the Soviets to a standstill and the third they lost but were able to negotiate a favourable end to hostilities due to their courage and the casualties they had inflicted on Stalins forces in 1939.

Finland was the only "Axis" nation not conquered by the Allies.
(and i use the term "Axis" loosely, as far as I am aware Finland never declared war on UK or USA or anyone else, only Russia/Soviet Union)

B.

now back to the topic at hand

Infidels,
the Koran authorises the following measures against Infidels,
offer the infidel the chance to convert to Islam,
if he refuses beat him until he submits,
if he fails to submit then his wife, children and property are forfeit,
if he still refuses to submit - kill him.


and thats the part that the Wahhabism base their vies of Islam on.


How do we stop it?
being nice guys wont do it.

Friends of mine were caught up in 9/11, and relatives of mine were caught up in London, and I survived 3 IRA bombings during the 70's
- (one of them had i been 2 feet to my left i would have died with everyone else)

Naturally I have a radical solution

You catch or identify (from remains) a terrorist? Kill him kill his wife his children his parents his brothers his sisters his grandparents his aunts his uncles his cousins his nephews his nieces,
his wifes parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles aunts cousins nephews and neices,
aunts husbands, uncles wives, their children, their brothers their sisters their parents their grandparents, their cousins, nephews and nieces.
make the consequences of being a murdering terrorist so horrible no-one in their sane mind would contemplate commiting such an act.

Does that make us terrorists?
yes.
Will it stop the bombings?
Yes - the section of the human gene pool that is suseptible to radical religous BS will be exterminated.


NOTE this post is not directed at any one religous or racial group, i dont care if you are black, white, red, blue or green, likewise i dont care if you pray to god, allah, buddha or the Potato King and Mr Flibble - if you are a murdering terrorist nutter you have got to go.
B.

Are you saying fight fire with fire? You dont want us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs? You think we should lower ourselves to their level? What do you think this is TOTAL WAR?

I bow to your wisdom :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barocca

Will it stop the bombings?
Yes - the section of the human gene pool that is suseptible to radical religous BS will be exterminated.

---

One question - how many innocents would you be willing to kill to achieve this? Would one for every killed innocent on our side be enough? Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

---

15. It must be so horrific and unbearable that only the truly insane would consider this method.

(I just chimed in since barocca's post and my post #103 were on a similar feel)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

15. It must be so horrific and unbearable that only the truly insane would consider this method.

---

[sarcasm]
Actually you are right. I think this might work. And actually this idea is so brilliant - we should further expand on it.
After all, many more people are killed by "ordinary" murderers than by terrorists.
Why not the same treatment here? Catch a murderer - and then - not only death penalty (after all this kiddie-stuff doesn't work, in countries with death penalty we still have murderers) - wipe the whole family of the murderer, wipe their friends and pets from the surface of this planet.
Now that would be a real deterrant. I can already see the crime rates dropping. Let's embrace this beautiful new world. Let's start right now.[/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

[sarcasm]
Actually you are right. I think this might work. And actually this idea is so brilliant - we should further expand on it.
After all, many more people are killed by "ordinary" murderers than by terrorists.
Why not the same treatment here? Catch a murderer - and then - not only death penalty (after all this kiddie-stuff doesn't work, in countries with death penalty we still have murderers) - wipe the whole family of the murderer, wipe their friends and pets from the surface of this planet.
Now that would be a real deterrant. I can already see the crime rates dropping. Let's embrace this beautiful new world. Let's start right now.[/sarcasm]

---

Was this the first thing that occured to you after reading my post? Sarcasm aside?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

One question - how many innocents would you be willing to kill to achieve this? Would one for every killed innocent on our side be enough? Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

---

it was proposed here recently that parents of a child who commits a crime be held responsible for their upbringing of said child has failed in some way, or they have been inattentive enough not to notice child shortcomings and take effective measures to correct them.

i am merely expanding the principle


i am sorry to those i offend, but when you have seen a young woman cut in two by a flying cash register and her guts billowing around you as her upper torso passes you by,
as i do each and every night when i go to sleep,
well, you kinda lose all sympathy for murdering terrorist nutters.
(and i my case ESPECIALLY IRA NUTTERS)

B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Was this the first thing that occured to you after reading my post? Sarcasm aside?

---

No - it was more like the second thing that occured to me after barocca's post. I guess I just quoted you last post because the whole idea got pretty much under my skin...

i was also one of those unfortunates who got to watch the second aircraft slam into the trade towers LIVE because some camera crew happened to be on the top of an adjacent building and were broadcasting at the time

i threw up on the spot

B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barocca

i am sorry to those i offend, but when you have seen a young woman cut in two by a flying cash register and her guts billowing around you as her upper torso passes you by,
as i do each and every night when i go to sleep,
well, you kinda lose all sympathy for murdering terrorist nutters.
(and i my case ESPECIALLY IRA NUTTERS)

B.

---

I will not claim that I understand your feelings, as I have fortunately not been in this kind of situation (and I pray that the day never comes).

You will find very few people who have sympathies for murdering terrorist nutters and I fully agree with this statement you made:

Quote:

---

if you are a murdering terrorist nutter you have got to go.

---

However, under no circumstances should we be the ones who deliberately do the same thing that you, your friends and family were forced to experience to other innocent people.

EDIT: sorry if I appeared overly aggressive in my previous posts,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I will not claim that I understand your feelings, as I have fortunately not been in this kind of situation (and I pray that the day never comes).

You will find very few people who have sympathies for murdering terrorist nutters and I fully agree with this statement you made:


However, under no circumstances should we be the ones who deliberately do the same thing that you, your friends and family were forced to experience to other innocent people.

---

naturally,
we simply take them down to the cells and shoot them individually one by one

B.

i am taking no offense,

my posts ARE offensive after all.

as far as i understand what i read,

the Wahhabism sect propose that no infidel, no matter how young, is innocent,
they are all guilty of heresy? against islam

when they say wives and children are forfeit, it means wives and daughters are slaves and sons are eunuched or killed

they dont recoginise our non-combatants as innocents, hence their "reward in heaven" for slaughtering women and children,
why should we recognise their families as innocents?

Its like thefight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid "first lets get the rules straight"kicks him in the balls"there are no damn rules" Both sides have to fight by the same rules even if that means none. Theres no refferees or penalties for cheating. This is about survival its not football or some game that we are playing. Once more this is TOTAL WAR. Get that through your heads its not just some criminal actions as many would have you believe. As Ive said over and over until you make these people and any other enemy in history for that matter believe you will never give up and that they can never win the battle will continue. Victory can only be achieved by strength.

Because they didn't do anything wrong, that's why. It's only the terrorists that are the criminals, not the 2 year old baby.
Anyone that purpoesly goes out and kills an innocents is a terrorist. Now, if you want to kill off all the terrorists, wouldn't that include the soldiers that executed those orders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Once more this is TOTAL WAR.

---

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

---

Do you believe this group will never get their hands on actual WMDs? Do you think if they do, they will not use it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Anyone that purpoesly goes out and kills an innocents is a terrorist.

---

What is your alternative solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Do you believe this group will never get their hands on actual WMDs? Do you think if they do, they will not use it?

---

Do you seriously think going after the children and families would prevent this from happening?
Even if you eradicate oneterrorist group this way, you will also plant the seeds for undying hatred. If you think that a massacre of innocents will eradicate the hate you would be very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Even if you eradicate oneterrorist group this way, you will also plant the seeds for undying hatred. If you think that a massacre of innocents will eradicate the hate you would be very wrong.

---

Tendentious misinterpretation of my view aside...

If we can agree that it is a matter of time before this group gets a WMD, and they obviously have no qualms with using it, how do you stop it?

Are you foolish enough to still think that western intelligence can keep up with these people?

I'm not advocating we nuke the terrorists back to the Garden of Eden now. The reality is we can't at this point; I understand that. Pre-emption as a global strategy is infinitely more destabilizing than strategic deterrence. But how can you be sure that you will have enough time to detect and prevent another, even more horrible attack on America? And when the time comes, it will be a tragedy. Certainly nobody could possibly have called for carpet bombing Germany in 1938. But there were those who predicted that it would be inevitable.

I don't think we can appease the terrorists, I don't think we can kill them all, and sorry Steppe, but I'm just not one of those "love is the answer, people" kinda girl. I don't think we can declare victory and go home. I certainly don't think we can declare defeat and go home. So all I can think of to this point is to continue to fight them imperfectly as long as we can to delay the inevitable.

And I don't see how that deters the enemy from attacking. Unfortunately, our strategic deterrent crumbled on 9/11 along with the Twin Towers. Hell, even during the height of the Cold War in 1962, we never needed a Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security? Sure, pal, that would be right over there in Silo #76. And I'm not smart enough to tell you how to re-establish a deterrent.

And without one, we gotta be lucky every time, 24/7, and they gotta be lucky only once. They will eventually get lucky, and I expect we would then retaliate reflexively, spasmodically, and terribly. Then I would suggest instead of reading the Org daily, one might find Revelations to be more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

If we can agree that it is a matter of time before this group gets a WMD, and they obviously have no qualms with using it, how do you stop it?

---

Quite frankly - we cannot with a 100% certainty.
IMO it is not a matter of if but only a matter of when and on which scale terrorists will be able to use more simple, chemical based weapons (keep in mind that it already happened in Japan).

Quote:

---

Are you foolish enough to still think that western intelligence can keep up with these people?

---

So what is your suggestion? Being "tougher"? That's a bit vague isn't it? How tough? What is the price you are willing to pay to incrementally increase your security?

Quote:

---

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

---

No thats the opinion of Bin Laden and AQ. The fact that you fail to recognise it as fact is the problem here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So what is your suggestion? Being "tougher"? That's a bit vague isn't it? How tough? What is the price you are willing to pay to incrementally increase your security?

---

Once again, since we agree it's when, not if they use WMDs on us, what is your suggestion?


I am not being vague. I am not just saying let's be 'tough.' I am bemoaning the loss of our strategic deterrent. And attempting to remind readers of the infancy of the creation of the deterrent at the end of WWII, and the core essence of its credibility. We did it before, we'd do it again. And how terrorists are not some sort of super or subhuman "evildoers", immune from or incapable of human emotions and desires. They would react in a similar manner as the "dirty Japs" of WWII.

Of course I layed out a scenario of annihilation of the terrorists and their families; that is precisely the vision they need to have in their mind - and the "metaphysical certainty" of its occurrence - when they contemplate, and then reject the actual use of WMD on US soil. That is the goal. Enable us to fight a conventional (or even better, a "Cold") war that we can fight and win over a long period of time. Heck, liberals if they want, can resist our efforts at every turn, just like they did in the last Cold War. We can win with them or without them. As long as we can keep it cold.

But given the absence of a credible nuclear stategic deterrent, it is beyond wishful thinking, it is plainly illogical to assume that WMDs on US soil will simply never happen. When it does, I believe that the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons in kind will become inevitable.

At that point, I believe it will be considered axiomatic that we should have done it sooner. As we should have done something about Hitler in 1933. But certainly, nobody could have argued that in 1933.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

And how terrorists are not some sort of super or subhuman "evildoers", immune from or incapable of human emotions and desires. They would react in a similar manner as the "dirty Japs" of WWII.

---

And that is where I think you are completely wrong - this enemy is different from an enemy like Japan in WWII. Your enemy is not a nation but a group of individuals with their very own idea of what is right and wrong.

If your enemy is a nation you can force them into submission as at some point the majority of people will be sick of a war that actually never has been "their" war.
Do you really think you can force these terrorists into submission by showing that you would be willing to not only destroy them but also their people? This is not fighting fire with fire - this is fighting fire with storm, you would only blow the flames higher..

My solution? Who said I know the solution? Try to kill the terrorists wherever and whenever you find them (Afghanistan was the right approach) and try to separate the "normal" muslim population from those who lie to them and claim to fight in the name of Islam.

Will this always work? Of course it won't - this is not some game where somebody can give you the walkthrough. But just because it does not work to your full and immediate satisfaction does not mean that the big club will.

Quote:

---

And that is where I think you are completely wrong - this enemy is different from an enemy like Japan in WWII. Your enemy is not a nation but a group of individuals with their very own idea of what is right and wrong.

---

No its not. The Japanese had their very own idea of what is right and wrong. The only difference is these people are spread among numerous nations . Its up to these nations to stamp them out but It seems they are more of disinterested bystanders at the least. As long as the terrorists dont attack them its ok. Too many western nations seem to have taken this same approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

As we should have done something about Hitler in 1933. But certainly, nobody could have argued that in 1933.

---

Now you've raised it, I've been thinking of the "Hitler" analogy. The thing is, I wonder if the correct analogy is with Hitler in 1921 or 1923, not in 1933? There is no state that the AQ terrorists control (thanks, in part, to the toppling of the Taliban). So it is not a question of taking a tough military posture, as say in the Cold War.

But AQ does seem to have significant support in places like Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. End this and we win the war on terror. If we think more in terms of what could have been done to stop Hitler coming to power in the 1920s, we may get more useful insights.

In particular, it leads to a focus on the societies that create these terrorists. I like the rhetoric of the US neocons about transforming the Middle East, although I am not sure the means selected - invading Iraq and supporting Sharon - are going to have the desired effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Too many western nations seem to have taken this same approach.

---

Wrong - we do not disagree with regard to the stamping - we disagree with regard to the shoe-size