Mass Shooting at Fort Hood - 13 dead / shooter alive

[Jud Owns Digger]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

People that are complicit in the murder of others are no longer innocent civilians. Those who harbor killers are no different than the killers themselves. The Israelis had it right...a few years ago they instituted a policy that if a suicide bomber attacked them, they found his family and bulldozed their home. Since then, attacks have dropped dramatically. These monsters are willing to die and get their 72 virgins, but are they willing to put their family through that kind of suffering?

BS statements about a religion of peace, tolerance, co-existence...they do nothing to deter or prevent terrorism. Speak to them in the only language they understand - force.

So it's horrible for a terrorist to put their family through that kind of suffering, but it's ok for Israel to "find their families and bulldoze their homes" and put those families through suffering? Nice logic there.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by SpartyOnInChitown

So it's horrible for a terrorist to put their family through that kind of suffering, but it's ok for Israel to "find their families and bulldoze their homes" and put those families through suffering? Nice logic there.

The logic has an appeal for some. I think a lot of it has to do with the concepts of punishment and justice which we saw manifested during the beginning of the financial crisis by those who said "Hey, those who screwed up deserve to be destitute." Maybe so, but the flip side is when their being destitute, be they millions of homeowners, financial insitutions, employers on a massive scale, impacts everybody else. Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill and recognize that in some instances "justice" comes at such a price that feelings of revenge must go unsatisfied.

Here, we're using tangible weaponry (the armed forces) to take on an intangible enemy (radical Islam). Not only do we face a disadvantage there, but the situation is similar to Vietnam in that to gain ground, all the enemy has to do is not lose it. Fighting this struggle can be a very difficult thing, which leads to frustration and ideas "blow 'em all up."

[Coach Ks bad back]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

The logic has an appeal for some. I think a lot of it has to do with the concepts of punishment and justice which we saw manifested during the beginning of the financial crisis by those who said "Hey, those who screwed up deserve to be destitute." Maybe so, but the flip side is when their being destitute, be they millions of homeowners, financial insitutions, employers on a massive scale, impacts everybody else. Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill and recognize that in some instances "justice" comes at such a price that feelings of revenge must go unsatisfied.

Here, we're using tangible weaponry (the armed forces) to take on an intangible enemy (radical Islam). Not only do we face a disadvantage there, but the situation is similar to Vietnam in that to gain ground, all the enemy has to do is not lose it. Fighting this struggle can be a very difficult thing, which leads to frustration and ideas "blow 'em all up."

Is there an alternative? Hearts and minds of those programmed to kill in the name of religion cannot be changed through soft means. We "blew 'em all up" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was an equally inplacable and fanatical enemy. It seemed to work in that instance, I see no reason why it wouldn't this time around.

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Is there an alternative? Hearts and minds of those programmed to kill in the name of religion cannot be changed through soft means. We "blew 'em all up" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was an equally inplacable and fanatical enemy. It seemed to work in that instance, I see no reason why it wouldn't this time around.

How do you figure the Japanese army was equally "inplacable" as the ideology we're currently fighting a war against?

Bombs don't kill ideologies.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Is there an alternative? Hearts and minds of those programmed to kill in the name of religion cannot be changed through soft means. We "blew 'em all up" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was an equally inplacable and fanatical enemy. It seemed to work in that instance, I see no reason why it wouldn't this time around.

You're seriously advocating the use of a nuclear weapon when there's not even a hard target to hit?

[Coach Ks bad back]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

How do you figure the Japanese army was equally "inplacable" as the ideology we're currently fighting a war against?

Bombs don't kill ideologies.

Well, actually they do. The Japanese of the 1930's and 1940's believed in their imperial destiny as religiously and zealously as radical Muslims believe in their obligation to kill and conquer for Allah. They also used suicide attacks as a preferred method of terror.

Two bombs were all it took to convince them that no matter what they believed, no matter how hard they fought, no matter how much they believed a higher power would will them to victory....they were up up against an enemy more powerful than anything they could possibly comprehend. The sheer shock and awe or seeing two cities completely wiped out in a matter of minutes significantly changed their mentality and made them come to grips with reality.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Is there an alternative? Hearts and minds of those programmed to kill in the name of religion cannot be changed through soft means. We "blew 'em all up" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was an equally inplacable and fanatical enemy. It seemed to work in that instance, I see no reason why it wouldn't this time around.

So we need to "nuke the Muslims"? Here you may need this...



I guess we need to nuke the entire planet. Maybe we can nuke everything except the green areas. There will still be Muslims around, but if we can round them all up into one area and then nuke that area, we'll finally be at peace!

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Well, actually they do. The Japanese of the 1930's and 1940's believed in their imperial destiny as religiously and zealously as radical Muslims believe in their obligation to kill and conquer for Allah. They also used suicide attacks as a preferred method of terror.

Two bombs were all it took to convince them that no matter what they believed, no matter how hard they fought, no matter how much they believed a higher power would will them to victory....they were up up against an enemy more powerful than anything they could possibly comprehend. The sheer shock and awe or seeing two cities completely wiped out in a matter of minutes significantly changed their mentality and made them come to grips with reality.

Way to ignore the question at the heart of this. At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that there's a difference between an imperial army and a loose coalition of like-minded terrorists spread all across the world if you want anyone to take you seriously.

[Coach Ks bad back]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

Way to ignore the question at the heart of this. At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that there's a difference between an imperial army and a loose coalition of like-minded terrorists spread all across the world if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Obviously there's a difference. The underlying commonality is a totalitarian ideology with conquest and murder at its core. To address the cute little map above, you don't need to drop nukes all over the world. That's plainly ridiculous. What you need, however, is direct accountibility for those who harbor terrorists. Go after the ones they care for the most. Go after the sites they care for the most. Truly give them a stake in this fight beyond their own lives.

[irishmick79]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Obviously there's a difference. The underlying commonality is a totalitarian ideology with conquest and murder at its core. To address the cute little map above, you don't need to drop nukes all over the world. That's plainly ridiculous. What you need, however, is direct accountibility for those who harbor terrorists. Go after the ones they care for the most. Go after the sites they care for the most. Truly give them a stake in this fight beyond their own lives.

What do you do when they crop up as home grown terrorists somewhere in the US?

[ming]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

We "blew 'em all up" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was an equally inplacable and fanatical enemy. It seemed to work in that instance, I see no reason why it wouldn't this time around.

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

Two bombs were all it took to convince them that no matter what they believed, no matter how hard they fought, no matter how much they believed a higher power would will them to victory....they were up up against an enemy more powerful than anything they could possibly comprehend. The sheer shock and awe or seeing two cities completely wiped out in a matter of minutes significantly changed their mentality and made them come to grips with reality.

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

To address the cute little map above, you don't need to drop nukes all over the world. That's plainly ridiculous..

It was your idea.

[Coach Ks bad back]

Originally Posted by irishmick79

What do you do when they crop up as home grown terrorists somewhere in the US?

What we should have done in the first place - arrest and try them on sedition charges. We had this nut under surveillance and no one lifted a finger. Then, you unravel the web from which he sprung. Unfortunately, our laws handcuff our ability to respond to these types with the appropriate attention they deserve, and our founders never could've imagined such an infiltration.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

What we should have done in the first place - arrest and try them on sedition charges. We had this nut under surveillance and no one lifted a finger. Then, you unravel the web from which he sprung. Unfortunately, our laws handcuff our ability to respond to these types with the appropriate attention they deserve, and our founders never could've imagined such an infiltration.

Sedition's a conspiracy charge so you need at least 2 people and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Coach Ks bad back

What we should have done in the first place - arrest and try them on sedition charges. We had this nut under surveillance and no one lifted a finger. Then, you unravel the web from which he sprung. Unfortunately, our laws handcuff our ability to respond to these types with the appropriate attention they deserve, and our founders never could've imagined such an infiltration.

Maybe, just maybe, you can't completely prevent terrorism AND live in a free society?

I suppose if you created a totalitarian police state you could be safer from terrorism. You would need an army of secret police rounding up any and all dissenters of course. The political opposition would have to be killed right away or sent to work camps where they could be forcibly "re-educated". I believe that is the only scenario in history where terrorism has even been somewhat controlled through use of force.

Of course totalitarian regimes do have a downside....