How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

azimuth · #76 08-14-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

You didn't answer mine, or maybe you did implicitly. I'll presume your answers were YES, YES, and WHY NOT INDEED.

In that case, your vision of what needs to be done may become more of a reality, should my prediction of an Iran war come to pass. Decisions will be based on the limited ground troops available, if it happens in the near future. Its still hard to fathom at this point.

Fair enough. Now I understand. When I refer to the 'law of the jungle', it is to demonstrate that we must position ourselves as bigger, meaner, hungrier predators than they are. Targeting civilians need not be the case. There are other ways to do it. We are just not willing to go there.....yet.

Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level?

If we wish to survive where other great societies failed, then yes, we'd better do what it takes.

I'm not convinced that dropping a nuke is necessary yet. Though we'd be well advised to fight fire with fire in the event that a despotic regime begins to gain nukes regardless of the ability to deliver.

aklim · #77 08-14-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

If we want to preserve our western way of life we need to do whatever it takes to win a war that has been going on and off for almost a thousand years. The difference today is that our "enemies" are developing global WMD and will use them without hesistation, whereas we will sit on the stump and ponder about being a civilized society playing by some self induced sense of morality. Our Islamic enemies don't differentiate between our military and civilian population. We are all the enemy to them and therefore we should all be killed. There are no innocent civilians when it comes to nationalistic war, as all citizens are subjected to supporting their countries military on opposing sides, wheather they like it or not. War is brutal, bloody and barbaric, it has always been that way and will always be that way. Are we fighting for our lives, that is what determines how far we should go to defend ourselves.

Should we wait until our enemies develope nuclear weapons and use them against us before we respond? Or should we take preemtive action to eliminate their threat? Tough choice for a morally civilized society. Have we gotten to that point of "survival of the fittest" mentality? IMHO not yet, but we are approaching it and will soon have to make that decision. It's similar to the decision to nuke Japan in WW2. I think we made the right choice then, and I believe if it comes down to it again, we do it, nuke them into oblivion. They will do it to us one day if we allow it to happen.

Choice is simple. Moral and dead or immoral and alive. I choose to be alive. After all, you can't debate morality when you are dead and it probably doesn't matter.

aklim · #78 08-14-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Fair enough. Now I understand. When I refer to the 'law of the jungle', it is to demonstrate that we must position ourselves as bigger, meaner, hungrier predators than they are. Targeting civilians need not be the case. There are other ways to do it. We are just not willing to go there.....yet.

Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level?

If we wish to survive where other great societies failed, then yes, we'd better do what it takes.

I'm not convinced that dropping a nuke is necessary yet. Though we'd be well advised to fight fire with fire in the event that a despotic regime begins to gain nukes regardless of the ability to deliver.

What does getting even get you? Even. Why even bother with that. Why fight fire with fire? Throw the kitchen sink first. When you fight, why hold back and be bound? They are not.

mikemover · #79 08-14-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Fair enough. Now I understand. When I refer to the 'law of the jungle', it is to demonstrate that we must position ourselves as bigger, meaner, hungrier predators than they are. Targeting civilians need not be the case. There are other ways to do it. We are just not willing to go there.....yet.

Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level?

If we wish to survive where other great societies failed, then yes, we'd better do what it takes.

I'm not convinced that dropping a nuke is necessary yet. Though we'd be well advised to fight fire with fire in the event that a despotic regime begins to gain nukes regardless of the ability to deliver.

Yep.

We'd better prepare for it to get a LOT uglier, because it IS going to do so.

All of this current "cease fire" business in Israel and Lebanon is nothing more than a convenient "time out" to allow Hezhollah to regroup and re-arm. I can't believe Israel's leadership and military fell for it and agreed to it.

And don't fool yourself... WE are not far below the Israelis on Hezbollah's list of "infidels to kill".

This IS a matter of "survival of the fittest", and we'd BETTER prepare to play by THEIR brutal, show-no-mercy rules... because our enemy has shown beyond any doubt that they certainly are NOT going to play by ours.

Mike

raymr · #80 08-14-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What rules? The ones that they themselves are not following? Maybe you should protest to the Ref and have him give them a 10 yard penalty for unsportsman like behavior. YES, OF COURSE.

ABSO FAWKING LUTELY

We should not take an eye for an eye. That leaves everybody with no eyes sooner or later. Take both their eyes and an arm when they take an eye of yours out. Why not drop a few big ones? I don't know. Other than we don't ahve the stones to, that is.

I do agree that things need to be done differently from the past. But before doing anything that millions of people might regret, there should be an honest impartial examination as to whether we are in a deadly embrace with the Israelis. It seems we are getting sucked into a religious war that we have no business being in. Its a war of ideals with essentially no national boundaries, except for the line drawn around Israel.

And what if we bomb Iran into glass? Will Egypt and others stay neutral during such an event? Don't you think thousands of new Jihadists will emerge from all corners of the world for decades to get some revenge?

It would be bad to abandon Israel, but this out-of-control spiral that many people see coming looks equally bad.

azimuth · #81 08-14-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What does getting even get you? Even. Why even bother with that. Why fight fire with fire? Throw the kitchen sink first. When you fight, why hold back and be bound? They are not.

You are correct. I should have been clear. I do not advocate defensive postures when our existence hangs in the balance.....

Again, there are ways to preempt any maniacal action by our sworn enemies. We must first remove our dinner jacket and defend our wives, sisters, mothers and children.

450slcguy · #82 08-14-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I do agree that things need to be done differently from the past. But before doing anything that millions of people might regret, there should be an honest impartial examination as to whether we are in a deadly embrace with the Israelis. It seems we are getting sucked into a religious war that we have no business being in. Its a war of ideals with essentially no national boundaries, except for the line drawn around Israel.

And what if we bomb Iran into glass? Will Egypt and others stay neutral during such an event? Don't you think thousands of new Jihadists will emerge from all corners of the world for decades to get some revenge?

It would be bad to abandon Israel, but this out-of-control spiral that many people see coming looks equally bad.

It's our destiny to destroy the world. Doomsday, Armageddon, the 2nd comeing of Christ, call it what you will. I don't mean to be grim, but I don't see much hope for the human race. Remember Planet of Apes? It's ironic how one generations science fiction becomes the next generations reality.

azimuth · #83 08-14-2006, 10:27 PM

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.

The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.

The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.

They also say that it would greatly reduce queues at secur-ity gates, which caused lengthy delays at London airports yesterday for the fifth day running. Heathrow and Gatwick were worst affected, cancelling 69 and 27 flights respectively. BAA gave warning yesterday that the disruption would continue for the rest of the week.

Passengers are now allowed to take one small piece of hand luggage on board but security staff are still having to search 50 per cent of travellers. Airports have also been ordered to search twice as many hand luggage items as a week ago.

BAA was criticised yesterday for failing to commit itself to recruiting more security staff and for claiming that its existing 6,000 staff at seven airports would be able to handle the extra searches. Tony Douglas, the chief executive of Heathrow, said that X-ray screening of hand luggage would be much faster under the new rules on size and contents, leaving staff free to carry out more searches.

The new measures, which include a ban on taking any liquids through checkpoints, are expected to remain in place for months. A DfT source said it was difficult to see how the restrictions could be relaxed if terrorists now had the capabil-ity to make liquid bombs.

The DfT has been considering passenger profiling for a year but, until last week, the disadvantages were thought to outweigh the advantages. A senior aviation industry source said: “The DfT is ultra-sensitive about this and won’t say anything publicly because of political concerns about being accused of racial stereotyping.”

Three days before last week’s arrests, the highest-ranking Muslim police officer in Britain gave warning that profiling techniques based on physical appearance were already causing anger and mistrust among young Muslims. Tarique Ghaffur, an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: “We must think long and hard about the causal factors of anger and resentment.

“There is a very real danger that the counter-terrorism label is also being used by other law-enforcement agencies to the effect that there is a real risk of criminalising minority communities.”

Sir Rod Eddington, former chief executive of British Airways, criticised the random nature of security searches. He said that it was irrational to subject a 75-year-old grandmother to the same checks as a 25-year-old man who had just paid for his ticket with cash.

Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant, said that profiling should focus on ruling out people who obviously posed no risk rather than picking out Asian or Arabs.

A DfT spokesman refused to make any comment or answer any questions on profiling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html

aklim · #84 08-14-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I do agree that things need to be done differently from the past. But before doing anything that millions of people might regret, there should be an honest impartial examination as to whether we are in a deadly embrace with the Israelis. It seems we are getting sucked into a religious war that we have no business being in. Its a war of ideals with essentially no national boundaries, except for the line drawn around Israel.

And what if we bomb Iran into glass? Will Egypt and others stay neutral during such an event? Don't you think thousands of new Jihadists will emerge from all corners of the world for decades to get some revenge?

It would be bad to abandon Israel, but this out-of-control spiral that many people see coming looks equally bad.

Well, at the time it was a good idea to help the Isrealis. At this time, it seems still a good idea since they are there and in a position to give the muslims something to worry about. Besides, life is not a video game. They are not likely to forget us as enemies so even if we did walk away, it wouldn't cure the matter.

Maybe, maybe not. But it leaves them something to worry about. Now they can see victory because they know that willpower will win and they know we don't have the will to win.

So? We are not married to Isreal. When it doesn't pay, it doesn't pay. At this time, I think it does since they have the stones to go further than we do and sometimes it might be necessary. However, allies are allies only when they have to be. This is not a "Forever and ever" thing. If all the muslims there died and the region is taken over by say the french and it isn't in our interests to do anything about it, oh well./

mikemover · #85 08-14-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown...

LOOOOOONG overdue.

Profiling WORKS. Period. It only makes sense.

We need to get over the political correctness hurdle, and start doing what will WORK.

If a young white male robs a convenience store, the police don't go out looking for old Japanese ladies, do they?.....

Why should airport security be any different, just for the sake of political correctness?...

Mike

azimuth · #86 08-14-2006, 10:41 PM

I posted the story to demonstrate that there are ways of being more predatory if we will only shed our maudlin PC veils for a moment.....

450slcguy · #87 08-14-2006, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown

Sir Rod Eddington, former chief executive of British Airways, criticised the random nature of security searches. He said that it was irrational to subject a 75-year-old grandmother to the same checks as a 25-year-old man who had just paid for his ticket with cash.

Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant, said that profiling should focus on ruling out people who obviously posed no risk rather than picking out Asian or Arabs.

Gee, finally some common sense, who would have thought it was possible.

Pissing off the Muslims, yea, I can live with that. I far as I'm concerned, if they can't deal with it like I have to in my own country, then export them back to their own kind. I've had enough of their intolerance towards to our Western society.

mikemover · #88 08-14-2006, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

I posted the story to demonstrate that there are ways of being more predatory if we will only shed our maudlin PC veils for a moment.....

Yep.

Mike

aklim · #89 08-14-2006, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

LOOOOOONG overdue.

Profiling WORKS. Period. It only makes sense.

We need to get over the political correctness hurdle, and start doing what will WORK.

If a young white male robs a convenience store, the police don't go out looking for old Japanese ladies, do they?.....

Why should airport security be any different, just for the sake of political correctness?...

Mike

Way, way overdue.

If anyone says it doesn't work, they obviously don't know a thing about insurance companies. They seem to make it work. Not every 18 yo single male is more risky than a 30yo married female but that is the safe way to bet.

Don't care for PC. Worthless crap. If they don't like it, tough. I like being alive.

Well, if that old jap lady is say in her 30s - 50s and looks attractive, I'll frisk her.

It shouldn't

raymr · #90 08-14-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Gee, finally some common sense, who would have thought it was possible.

Pissing off the Muslims, yea, I can live with that. I far as I'm concerned, if they can't deal with it like I have to in my own country, then export them back to their own kind. I've had enough of their intolerance towards to our Western society.

It will take a pretty big kick to dislodge the PC glasses most people in this country are wearing. Sounds too much like black segregation or the internment of Asians during WWII, especially if it expands beyond airport security. It may be doable, but it wouldn't surprise me if we end up having to apologize and pay reparations to thousands of people for discrimination some time down the road. You can bet the ACLU will be all over it. Do they have something like ACLU in England?