Another Attack in United Kingdom
- Thread starter MrHotDice
- Start date
MOAB dropped on a terrorist hot spot in the middle east for every attack around the world would soon put pressure on their leaders who support terrorism to put the clamps on these attacks or, we could just join them and submit to their laws.
Warrior,
I generally agree with your posts but would like your thoughts on this view that has been wafting through my mind. Like you (or maybe not like you) my visceral response to terrorism would be taking a position such as "1 American life is worth approximately 1000 muslim lives" then do as you've suggested. On the other hand, I wonder if we act in that manner if it will do more to convince muslim fence-riders that what isis says about us being evil is true...thus actually pushing them to the isis side. Not that I'm taking that position as I agree that we must act out of a position of strength....Just wondering.
They think we are evil anyway and my reaction would be future attacks on us. Pacification is not working. Israel responds quickly and so should we. I am all for getting out of the middle east and only defending our borders and retaliating when we are attacked and when we find out who assisted the terrorist (money backers, trainers, etc....) we take all of them out and show what will happen to future collaborators. I would add that MOAB type bombs be used by other counties that are attacked as a show of a united front against terrorism.
I'm for supporting Israel (period). As for other involvement in the m e, I'd be for getting out and letting them duke it out among themselves WHILE simply patrolling securing the borders of those countries in order to keep others ie russia, china, etc... from interfering in their squabbles.
That is my thought as well . . . exactly who do we bomb . . . and why? The last terrorist that did this grew up in London, IIRC, and was reported to the authorities not once but several times by fellow Muslims who said he even stood up in their Mosque advocating violence. And the London police did not stop him. So exactly what would Britain accomplish by bombing some random middle eastern country?
This isn't terrorism anymore. Europe has let enough of them in that it has now become an insurgency.
Not random, find out who (if any) were bank rolling their training or training them and take them out by whatever means needed.
If we could do that, why would we wait for a terrorist attack to bomb them?
Terrorism is effective in large measure because it baits the victim nation into overreacting, which leads to more terrorist recruits.
Europe has not ever overreacted, that is a false but common talking point.
I didn't say Europe has overreacted. I responded to the post above which advocated bombings as a response to terrorism and stated that emotional overreaction plays into the strategy of terrorists.
If you want to discuss the failure of Europe to require Muslims to assimilate into a free, civil society, I'm all ears, but please read what I actually write rather than responding to a point that was not made.
They are recruited on ideology more than response to their being attacked. They believe infidels need to be eliminated and have thought that way for thousands of years. The only response is if they attack you make them pay ten fold. Attack them back and the ones who support them. Take out the support system and you take out a large portion of the threat. You seem to be advocating pacification which to them conveys compliance and agreement.
It is growing regardless wherever they are, that is the point. The "recruitment" arguments are a crutch. And you can't require assimilation. You simply stop allowing more if they don't.
Going only by what is available to the public, it seems to me not enough is being done to fight ISIS. We need a coalition of all available armed forces, air power and ground troops, to take the fight to wherever they are. Call it a Crusade!
Bring our people home.
Get the ban passed.
Let the world deal with their issues.
Get the ban passed.
Let the world deal with their issues.
It's a freakin shame that the only person taking this crap seriously is being hamstrung by a few pos judges who argue intent instead of actually evaluating law.
Last edited:
Pretty sure anyone that owns or knows someone that owns a Prius disagrees with this statement. F them. Move.
The only to fix this is to instill fear into them. Kill every single member of their family if they commit jihad. See how quick they straighten their shit up.
Oh they'll stop if their family's lives at stake. Sure wish the govt called me for that job. I'd have 0% problem legally offing their families.
Eh.
It is easy to spout dick swagger on the internet but two things:
1. It is inherently immoral to punish someone's family for the acts of one individual, absent proof that the family was either complicit or negligent regarding the act, and;
2. It is also stupid because it puts us on the same moral playing field without gaining any advantage.
I say this as an utterly cutthroat individual who would have no problem personally lopping off the mothers' heads of those savages who committed this attack if I thought it would create a net saving of lives. But it both (1) wouldn't and (2) would be just as evil.
Now if you want to talk about criminally punishing people who don't report obvious red flags of their children to authorities and those children then go on to commit terror or mass shootings -- bring it.
F*** those people. Charge 'em. Jail 'em. Hell, hang 'em.
Hank, i get it. It's no dick swagger. I could axe the whole family with no conscience. I hate muslims. Plus i wanna kill without going to jail. Just wanna kill people legally.
Your other points are good. But vicarious learning Bandura style would stop the terrorism. When one's actions can harm one's family, i damn well guarantee you that the behavior will stop. Mohammed and Allah will take a back seat to every muslim if their family is threatened. Fight fire with fire.
No.
You're assuming that the people committing these acts have any shred of morality and therefore would be dissuaded if their families were put at risk.
That ain't true. They're narcissistic shitheels who are looking for any perverse avenue to aggrandize themselves.
If they had a shred of decency they would act like a grown man and not consider running a van through pedestrians on a Saturday night and then cutting defenseless women's throats.
If they weren't pieces of shit, the consequences argument may hold water but you're basically arguing about telling a knock-knock joke to a dog and wondering if he'll get the punchline.
That said. F*** 'em. Throw some of Al Purnell's rejected sausage in their coffin. Light it on fire. Piss on it. Then light it on fire again and be done with it.
Hank, i agree with ya. Ha ha
Just saying that one's actions over time will make one rethink their recourse when family is affected. It's true. I've lived in a muslim country off and on for about a year. Family means everything to a muslim as long as they have control. Killing their family takes the control out of their hand.
Man don't do that to Purnell. Have some damn respect.
What kind of piece of shit would be so reckless about his family that he'd kill himself by attacking innocent people over some bullshit cause rather than providing?
These aren't men. They are swine. And you can't argue with a pig. Or you can and they'll still be delicious when you're done.
Watch out. You may be in jeopardy of being called a beta cuck snowflake if you're not on board.
Butt hurt by the truth about you? Funny.
I don't know about that, it is funny sometimes which helps decrease stress in some people. I have never been thinned skinned so, when called names I usually laugh at it myself. That is one of the biggest problems this nations has, crying about being called what you probably are. Most snowflakes have a hard time dealing with it.
Agreed.
The discussion usually stops when names are thrown around, though...
and, sooner or later, a serious discussion needs to be had between all Americans about this shiite. (no pun intended)
Last edited:
