Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

But you do have to remember that terrorist groups are often tightly interwoven and really not that local. The same guys that patrol the Iraqi streets have trained in Jemen and fought in Somalia and will blow up innocent Israeli's in a few years time. Air liners aren't limited to the western world any more. These groups also often recruit and are supported by local militant groups, or coordinate their activities.

Sure, it might be that that specific guy walking that specific street will never set a foot outside of Iraq, but I'd hate to be the one telling the Israeli's "Sorry that the center of Jeruzalem got blown up by someone we didn't shoot. We thought they were civilians or at most local militia. But we can still have tea together, no?)

That's the thing though, there's no way of knowing that when looking at somebody, especially from a mile away down the end of a gunsight.  Now, if you reasonably believe they're carrying weapons or otherwise doing something obviously threatening, then yeah they're targets.  But they're still just "local" threats, by virtue of them being in the locality and you not knowing anything else about them.  And no, I'm not even going to touch what was or wasn't in that video, I'm extemporizing here.

That dynamic certainly exists, but I'm just saying that trying to tie that to target-prioritization in street patrols is a hopelessly vague strategy, that doesn't really serve any better purpose or improve your objective outcome.  You go one step at a time.

[Virex]

You don't need to make that assessment at patrol time. The decision to better be safe then sorry is something that should be made at mission briefings, or preferably by the military command. For patrols just translate to "don't hold back if you think you've got a reason to shoot" which in my opinion is a far better idea then "let's just wait till they blow up a market square, to be sure they're actually terrorists"

[Leafsnail]

Pop quiz: What are America's goals in Iraq?

...As far as I can tell, one of the main ones is establishing local stability.  Blowing up civilians at random doesn't seem like a good way to promote that.

[SalmonGod]

I'm pretty sure the efforts to prevent terrorists from killing innocent people have killed more innocent people than actual terrorists.  So that whole argument is bullshit in my opinion.  The cure is worse than the disease.  Not only that, but the cure is also arguably the cause of the disease.  Kill everyone because everyone has the potential to kill someone is far from an intelligent way to solve problems, and the most likely response from anyone of the same mindset is kill everyone because they're going to kill me because they think I might someday kill someone.

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

Double standards? I'd happily support the police shooting anyone making threatening moves with a gun or knife or otherwise being a potential threat. It would solve a LOT of problems, not just in Iraq. When you've got mayors fleeing for their lives (Holland), 12 years olds massacring whole gangs on their own (Mexico), someone causing a bloodbath on a military base (US) and more of those "inconveniences" all over the world, I don't think it's right to let massacres waiting to happen walk free because you may just have the wrong guy.

So we must take it in our own hand and massacre them instead ? Seriously, that make no damn sense.

[Virex]

I'm pretty sure the efforts to prevent terrorists from killing innocent people have killed more innocent people than actual terrorists.  So that whole argument is bullshit in my opinion.  The cure is worse than the disease.  Not only that, but the cure is also arguably the cause of the disease.  Kill everyone because everyone has the potential to kill someone is far from an intelligent way to solve problems, and the most likely response from anyone of the same mindset is kill everyone because they're going to kill me because they think I might someday kill someone.

Terrorism doesn't just stop when you stop being mean to people. A terrorist is convinced that he has to take down a society and that conviction won't vanish at once. You may somehow be able limit the growth of terrorist organizations without actively opposing them, though I doubt that's possible giving the current state of the world, but you won't be able to crack open the core. What's worse is that you're giving them time to regroup and resupply. Remember that being a terrorist isn't a past-time activity, it's a way of life. As such, I am convinced that if the US would be to completely withdraw itself from the middle east, it'd only be a matter of time until some terrorist group has built up enough means for a second 9-11, 11-9 or a third intifada. Sure it may cause terrorism to die out in 3-4 generations, but do we want our grandchildren to live their lifes fearing every plane that takes off?

[ChairmanPoo]

Double standards? I'd happily support the police shooting anyone making threatening moves with a gun or knife or otherwise being a potential threat. It would solve a LOT of problems, not just in Iraq. When you've got mayors fleeing for their lives (Holland), 12 years olds massacring whole gangs on their own (Mexico), someone causing a bloodbath on a military base (US) and more of those "inconveniences" all over the world, I don't think it's right to let massacres waiting to happen walk free because you may just have the wrong guy.

So we must take it in our own hand and massacre them instead ? Seriously, that make no damn sense.

Indeed. Again, that video is about how an apache helicopter massacred a bunch of journalists and a spontaneous group of people that went to help the wounded. It's a proof of why policies like the one Virex is proposing do not work (as if one was needed). Literally anyone can end up as colateral damage in such a move.

[Virex]

There hasn't been a large terrorist attack on the west within what, 8 years now? (Not counting economic terrorism). That's not because terrorist groups have suddenly become nice to us, it's because there is constant pressure on them, preventing them from building up the needed assets. But they still exist, which means the pressure we put on them at this moment is enough to keep them in check - for now-, but not enough to ensure their extinction. What's worse is that in but Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of local militia's has been rising...

[ed boy]

I'm pretty sure the efforts to prevent terrorists from killing innocent people have killed more innocent people than actual terrorists.  So that whole argument is bullshit in my opinion.  The cure is worse than the disease.  Not only that, but the cure is also arguably the cause of the disease.  Kill everyone because everyone has the potential to kill someone is far from an intelligent way to solve problems, and the most likely response from anyone of the same mindset is kill everyone because they're going to kill me because they think I might someday kill someone.

By your own admission, this is not something that you know for certain, so do not treat it as if it is something where you do. The smartest thing you can do is have the humility to recognize that you do not know, and act appropriately.

There hasn't been a large terrorist attack on the west within what, 8 years now?

Wrong. Very wrong.

[ChairmanPoo]

There hasn't been a large terrorist attack on the west within what, 8 years now? (Not counting economic terrorism). That's not because terrorist groups have suddenly become nice to us, it's because there is constant pressure on them, preventing them from building up the needed assets.

It hasn't been for some crazy policy of shooting everyone vaguely threatening on sight, either.

But they still exist, which means the pressure we put on them at this moment is enough to keep them in check - for now-, but not enough to ensure their extinction. What's worse is that in but Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of local militia's has been rising...

Surely you're mistaken! Why would the Afghani and Iraqui peoples hate us more than ten years ago?!?!

There hasn't been a large terrorist attack on the west within what, 8 years now?

Wrong. Very wrong.

Why did you link that? It doesn't make any sense in the context

[SalmonGod]

Sure it may cause terrorism to die out in 3-4 generations, but do we want our grandchildren to live their lifes fearing every plane that takes off?

Or we can cling to our current ways and they can fear every plane that takes off for eternity.

What's worse is that in but Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of local militia's has been rising...

As evidenced.

The whole thing is a question of preference between great short term sacrifice/potential great long term gain vs moderate long term sacrifice/no gain and potential great future loss

[Aqizzar]

And the helicopter video has destroyed another thread, which was on a vaguely productive track.  Oh well, helicopter strikes again.

As long as we're talking about terrorism now for no good reason, I think the underwear-bomb guy of a year ago says a lot more about why the United States at least hasn't been hit by another attack in nine years.  Those guys are pretty fucking dumb.

[SalmonGod]

I'm pretty sure the efforts to prevent terrorists from killing innocent people have killed more innocent people than actual terrorists.  So that whole argument is bullshit in my opinion.  The cure is worse than the disease.  Not only that, but the cure is also arguably the cause of the disease.  Kill everyone because everyone has the potential to kill someone is far from an intelligent way to solve problems, and the most likely response from anyone of the same mindset is kill everyone because they're going to kill me because they think I might someday kill someone.

By your own admission, this is not something that you know for certain, so do not treat it as if it is something where you do. The smartest thing you can do is have the humility to recognize that you do not know, and act appropriately.

The same could be said of anyone, including those who are actually making the decisions.  The world is not composed of absolutes, which is why I'm an anarchist, because those who condone the use of violence by authority imply that it is by invoking the only absolute we can be sure of: life and death.

[IronyOwl]

Sure it may cause terrorism to die out in 3-4 generations, but do we want our grandchildren to live their lifes fearing every plane that takes off?

As opposed to living in fear that they'll be shot in the street for maybe looking kinda dodgy? You seem to be trying to say "look these people might kill people so we need to kill these people," which results in a rather circular (and indiscriminate) massacre, especially if the other guys think the same way.

[Osmosis Jones]

There hasn't been a large terrorist attack on the west within what, 8 years now? (Not counting economic terrorism). That's not because terrorist groups have suddenly become nice to us, it's because there is constant pressure on them, preventing them from building up the needed assets.

Alternatively, it's because now they don't need to leave home to kill 3,771 coalition soldiers, 15,196 Iraqi soldiers/police officers and 66,081 civilians. That's Iraq alone, not Afghanistan as well. That sounds like some pretty major terrorism to me, even if you only count the 3771 westerners.