They are ill-equiped and unorganized to the extent of terrorist groups in the middle east. Yes it would make an impact but if they were going to do it, don't you think they would have done it a long time ago (if they were just going to to small bombings)? No The like to go big and plan for it, and thanks to the incompetance of our government, we couldn't stop their last big plan.
Terrorism (Nearly) Strikes Back
- Thread starter Epic
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,026
- Reaction score
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mulluns @ May 10 2007, 06:16 PM) [snapback]163334[/snapback]</div>
Actually, we caught like 12 "terrorists" not too long ago. Indeed, we caught them, as in, stopped them from commiting acts. OK, buck-o?
You don't have to kill 'lots' of people to make a terrorist attack 'successful'. Read "X-Wing: The Kytos Trap" and you will learn a bit about effective terrorism. Attack a busy ER one day and the next people will have to wonder if they should go to their local ER to get medical help when they actually need it, which may cause more people to die because they didn't get that medical attention. Blow a hole in a shopping mall and sales at malls will drop through the floor. Blow up a subway, a bus and put a carbomb on a busy highway at rush-hour and people will not want to go to work, thereby slowing doen businesses. Its not always about how many you kill but where you kill people.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #24
Yeah, let's try not to compare real world terrorist attacks to something you read in an X-Wing book.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Adamis / Kal @ May 17 2007, 03:17 AM) [snapback]163957[/snapback]</div>
And where they kill us (and their people) is over there (Middle east).
Case closed.
They don't need to kill us here, because they realize it's easier to make ONE major attack over here enticing us to go and wage war. Hence why they'ed rather blow themselves up over there than here. It's also a lot easier to place an IED on the side of a road in Baghdad than putting on on the Jersey turnpike.
And where they kill us (and their people) is over there (Middle east).
Case closed.
They don't need to kill us here, because they realize it's easier to make ONE major attack over here enticing us to go and wage war. Hence why they'ed rather blow themselves up over there than here. It's also a lot easier to place an IED on the side of a road in Baghdad than putting on on the Jersey turnpike.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #27
They can't bring about the destruction of the West by killing soldiers in the Middle East. They'll be back here sooner or later.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,346
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep.
Yep. Once our troops are back over here, they'll start planning an attack or carry out one to send us BACK over there, where they can continue killing our troops at their Leisure.
The only way to win this war is to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. And I'm a fan of big booms, Nukes, Guns, etc. and I hate that solution.
Yep. Once our troops are back over here, they'll start planning an attack or carry out one to send us BACK over there, where they can continue killing our troops at their Leisure.
The only way to win this war is to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. And I'm a fan of big booms, Nukes, Guns, etc. and I hate that solution.
To both: And your solution to that is what? Stay over there until the end of time and allow even more senseless slaughter of our soldiers?
Nuking someone is never the solution. We have twice as powerful bombs as we did when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We would just be killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people in the process of a superfluous delusion of grandeur called "safety". Get over the fantasy of "safety" none of us are safe, ever. Unless you lock yourself up in a nuclear bunker.
Nuclear war against a people/religion (however you want to look at it) is genocide. And anyone who has that mentality, has the same mindset as Hitler (and countless other dictators and rulers).
Eventually the radical branch of Islam will destroy itself, and we can only hope that we don't lose too many people in the process.
Nuking someone is never the solution. We have twice as powerful bombs as we did when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We would just be killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people in the process of a superfluous delusion of grandeur called "safety". Get over the fantasy of "safety" none of us are safe, ever. Unless you lock yourself up in a nuclear bunker.
Nuclear war against a people/religion (however you want to look at it) is genocide. And anyone who has that mentality, has the same mindset as Hitler (and countless other dictators and rulers).
Eventually the radical branch of Islam will destroy itself, and we can only hope that we don't lose too many people in the process.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #30
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ May 17 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]164009[/snapback]</div>
I never said there was a solution that we could bring about. Really, the only solution is what you just said: radical Islam destroys itself. In order to do that, not only do the radicals need to all die or give up but the moderate Muslims (yo, whats up Hassan) need to stop living in fear, rise up and tell these guys to GTFO of Islam. I know it's not as simple as the way I just put it, but still.
It can happen.
I never said there was a solution that we could bring about. Really, the only solution is what you just said: radical Islam destroys itself. In order to do that, not only do the radicals need to all die or give up but the moderate Muslims (yo, whats up Hassan) need to stop living in fear, rise up and tell these guys to GTFO of Islam. I know it's not as simple as the way I just put it, but still.
It can happen.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,346
- Reaction score
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ May 17 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]164009[/snapback]</div>
Did I ever say I wanted World War Three? Even if this whole situation in the Middle East really could be considered that to a degree.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,026
- Reaction score
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aaron @ May 17 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]164032[/snapback]</div>
There will be a WWIII no matter what we do. Meh, humans.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,425
- Reaction score
- 32
The only time Nuclear war is good is when it is a part of fiction. It, as all war, should stay in the
realm of fiction. However, we are realy stuck in bewtween a rock and a hard place. If we stay, we suffer more and more casualties, if we leave, hostilities escalate anyway, and death runs rampent anyway. There realy isn't a solution that won't cause more death.
Makes me glad I'm not going into politics. Although I cry everytime they destroy a piece of art from long ago. I was enraged when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan. History is my passion, and those were truly great pieces of art, and history.
Also, as to Terrorist attacks on America, they could easily happen. It is not hard to fly to America from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. People come and go all the time. So an attack is always a threat.
And to quote Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
realm of fiction. However, we are realy stuck in bewtween a rock and a hard place. If we stay, we suffer more and more casualties, if we leave, hostilities escalate anyway, and death runs rampent anyway. There realy isn't a solution that won't cause more death.
Makes me glad I'm not going into politics. Although I cry everytime they destroy a piece of art from long ago. I was enraged when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan. History is my passion, and those were truly great pieces of art, and history.
Also, as to Terrorist attacks on America, they could easily happen. It is not hard to fly to America from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. People come and go all the time. So an attack is always a threat.
And to quote Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #35
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aaron @ May 17 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]164032[/snapback]</div>
No, it couldn't. This is one nation vs. an ideology. A world war needs to be multiple nations vs. multiple nations, all from different parts of the world.
No, it couldn't. This is one nation vs. an ideology. A world war needs to be multiple nations vs. multiple nations, all from different parts of the world.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ May 18 2007, 09:49 AM) [snapback]163995[/snapback]</div>
But it means more in America. A squad killed in Iraq is half-expected, the same number of people killed in LA going about 'normal' lives is completely unexpected and hits home alot harder with alot more people. I'm not saying that lossing those soliders is any less than the people in LA but people choose to work in the Armed Forces and know it is highly dangerous especially in times of war. People don't expect going about a 'normal' life in America to be dangerous. Effective terrorism isn't about how many people you kill, its about the terror you cause.
People already live in fear thanks to the trusty government. Terrorists know this and they exploit it by killing soldiers in Iraq and abroad. As a result the media (Fox news esspecially) and the government put out this message that "terrorists are out to get you" and I could make the argument that they are not, even though they WANT to kill us doesn't mean they will take the action to do so. In fact terrorists are rarely spurred into action unless we do something directly to their land.
Besides in the U.S. we lose more people to Gang violence than we lose to terrorists every year. Does that make them terrorists as well? LA is basically the gang capital of the United States. Terror isn't an absolute, it can happen to any neighborhood that has recently had a rape victim, or serial killers on the rise in a particular part of the country. Terrorism (in the context of what I am hearing from you) is debatable.
Besides in the U.S. we lose more people to Gang violence than we lose to terrorists every year. Does that make them terrorists as well? LA is basically the gang capital of the United States. Terror isn't an absolute, it can happen to any neighborhood that has recently had a rape victim, or serial killers on the rise in a particular part of the country. Terrorism (in the context of what I am hearing from you) is debatable.
- Status