These are people who tend to focus on killing us when they're not busy killing each other. I'd rather they kill each other. For free. Indefinitely.
For you, only relative good can come out of populations raised and trained with violence and strife, eh?
Stupid.
Bigotry and hatred leading to cheerleading for genocide of your hated group of the day... Jews in the past.... Muslims are the current popular par-de-course.
These are people who tend to focus on killing us when they're not busy killing each other. I'd rather they kill each other. For free. Indefinitely.
These are people who tend to focus on killing us when they're not busy killing each other. I'd rather they kill each other. For free. Indefinitely.
All according to plan (2005):
http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-future-of-terrorism-what-al-qaida-really-wants-a-369448.html
The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
For you, only relative good can come out of populations raised and trained with violence and strife, eh?
Stupid.
Bigotry and hatred leading to cheerleading for genocide of your hated group of the day... Jews in the past.... Muslims are the current popular par-de-course.
There is no moral between political entities that have no authority above them.
Stupid.
Have you studied the history of your much admired liberalism? Suppressing your animalistic nature is in itself a form of animality: the Jacobins in France demanded equality, liberty and brotherhood and they were willing to cut heads of anyone who opposed them to get that.
Since Israel can destroy world by itself let alone if west joined up I just dont see this plan as feasible no matter numbers. These jihad groups have not even seen total war yet nor our most deadly weapons. "Clear and hold" is civilized modern warfare but we havnt forgot old ways.
I say let them have their little beheading parties and sharia law Islamic state. Approach on our allies and we bomb the hell out of them like gulf war.
I agree. I think sooner or later, we're going to have to take the gloves off and engage in total, all-out war to rid ourselves of these animals. These guys have not seen the US ever conduct all-out war because it really hasn't been done since WW2. The conflicts since then have resulted in the military being handcuffed by political considerations. It sucks, but it will likely come down to a kill or be killed scenario eventually.
What does this total war you guys want involve?
Are you saying we should nuke millions of people to get a couple of thousand bad guys?
You're not getting it. We don't want "total war" and to kill "millions" just for the hell of it. What we're saying is that eventually, they won't be satisfied with this caliphate and will try to expand it and export terrorism globally. At that point, we will have to do something. These half-assed measures of going into a country, installing a new government, and then leaving isn't working (see: Iraq).
I'm perfectly content with parking a missile destroyer as close as possible and lobbing cruise missiles at them when specific threats have been identified, but I am not sure that is adequate.
I think I get it.
Your saying after these guys form their state, they won't be satisfied with it.
These guys are fanatics and may try to expand their state and force Islamic Sharia law on everyone that falls under in their conquered area. I may be wrong, but it seems to be their goal at some point.They will eventually try and expand out into other states because even though they have lot's of oil they may need more things like food or technology they don't have in abundance.
At the end of the day, I don't care what their motivation is for invading and conquering other nations -- if they do it, we have to fight back.If they can't get these things through treaties etc, they will have to invade other countries to keep their state alive.
Is that what your saying?
So basically they want to get back the territory of the Islamic golden age. What they are forgetting is that during that golden age, the Islamic world was more advanced and tolerant than the Western world, not a backwards sh!thole it is now.
I agree. I think sooner or later, we're going to have to take the gloves off and engage in total, all-out war to rid ourselves of these animals.
Hopefully you will sign up and be over there for this right?
Exactly. If they stay in their state and don't interfere or attack anyone else, they can keep it as far as I'm concerned. We don't need to waste blood or money trying to "install Democracy."
These guys are fanatics and may try to expand their state and force Islamic Sharia law on everyone that falls under in their conquered area. I may be wrong, but it seems to be their goal at some point.
At the end of the day, I don't care what their motivation is for invading and conquering other nations -- if they do it, we have to fight back.
Very true.
How do you feel when the US invades a country and people fight back?
It's kind of a mind bender eh
The US is only justified in invading countries if we're attacked first IMO. I did not support Iraq if that's what you're getting at. I did support Afghanistan and still do; it is unfortunate that Iraq diverted necessary resources and attention away from Afghanistan.
After the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and the PENTTBOM investigation, the United States made the following demands of the Taliban,[116]
1.Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda
2.Release all foreign nationals that have been unjustly imprisoned
3.Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers
4.Close immediately every terrorist training camp
5.Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities
6.Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection
The U.S. petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The U.N. issued two resolutions on terrorism after the September 11 attacks. The resolutions called on all states to "[increase] cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism" and specified consensus recommendations for all countries. The Security Council did not authorize military intervention in Afghanistan of any kind, and nowhere in the U.N resolutions did it say military operations in Afghanistan were justified or conformed to international law.[117] Despite this, NATO approved a campaign against Afghanistan as self-defense against armed attack.[118]
The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salem Zaeef, responded to the ultimatum by demanding "convincing evidence"[119] that Bin Laden was involved in the attacks, stating "our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it."[120][121] Additionally, the Taliban insisted that any trial of Bin Laden be held in an Afghan court.[122] Zaeef also claimed that "4,000 Jews working in the Trade Center had prior knowledge of the suicide missions, and 'were absent on that day.'"[121] This response was generally dismissed as a delaying tactic, rather than a sincere attempt to cooperate with the ultimatum.[119][123][124]
On September 22, the United Arab Emirates, and later Saudi Arabia, withdrew recognition of the Taliban as Afghanistan's legal government, leaving neighbouring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal[125] that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan blocked the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety.[126] On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the U.S. would not negotiate their demands.[127]
On October 7, less than one month after the September 11 attacks, the U.S., aided by the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries including several from the NATO alliance, initiated military action, bombing Taliban and Al-Qaeda-related camps.[128][129] The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power, and prevent the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.[130]
The Taliban did not attack America.
How did the Taliban attack us first?
Yeah, I'll be the one behind you as you beg, grovel, and try to appease them.
So you think someone should teach them a lesson, just as long as it isn't you.
IndyColtsFan said:Exactly. If they stay in their state and don't interfere or attack anyone else, they can keep it as far as I'm concerned. We don't need to waste blood or money trying to "install Democracy."