Media tiptoeing around Islamic ...

[dogmush]

Okay, here is my solution:
1. Find out which town/village/family the splody guy came from.
2. Kill EVERYBODY in that unit.
3. Go on the news saying "damn straight, we killed everyone, because you guys can't seem to find the bad guys yourselves, and guess what, we care going to keep doing this"
3. Repeat (I guarantee, they will run out of people before we run out of bombs)

These two came from Boston. Do we kill the whole town, or just the Watertown and Cambridge districts?

Maj Hasan was born in Arlington and went to HS in Roanoke?  Level both, or can we assume that he got weird in HS? Or for that matter his last home of record was Ft. Hood.  So we kill everyone there?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

These two came from Boston. Do we kill the whole town, or just the Watertown and Cambridge districts?

Maj Hasan was born in Arlington and went to HS in Roanoke?  Level both, or can we assume that he got weird in HS? Or for that matter his last home of record was Ft. Hood.  So we kill everyone there?

Pesky details spoil it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[birdman]

The biggest problem non-spoldey muslims have is that the fundy/splodey muslims hew closer to the orthodox reading of their faith's big documents.  The labels used by most in the west are not helpful in conveying this.

Mohammed was a conqueror and murdered non-muslim men & women out of hand when they were inconvenient.  There is a big difference between WWJD? and WWMD?

[sarcasm]
MO didn't do that, Islam is the religion of peace, I mean read the Koran, its all about peace, and nothing about proper soldiers of Islam
[/sarcasm]

[birdman]

These two came from Boston. Do we kill the whole town, or just the Watertown and Cambridge districts?

Maj Hasan was born in Arlington and went to HS in Roanoke?  Level both, or can we assume that he got weird in HS? Or for that matter his last home of record was Ft. Hood.  So we kill everyone there?

Can we narrow it down further?  Better yet, how about we shoot my friend who lived across the street from them?

Pesky details spoil it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Listen jackass, you know what I mean.  Reducto ad absurdum is nice and all, but makes for a poor debate.

We don't have to level the town, because its not like they were hiding among similar folks, Hassan was spouting off militant Islamist crap well before he went all shooty, and these guys (the older) started off saying some *expletive deleted*it as well.  But those communities are hamstrung by the schizophrenic trade between "see something, say something" and the PC shitstorm that decends on those who profile Muslim spouting wacko stuff as terrorist.  So find the closest group that can be identified WITH the most common trait.  Unfortunately, its THE GODDAMN RELIGION.

Do you think Arlington and Cambridge would say "we don't know why you guys are harshing on them?"  Do you think the people of Watertown weren't trying to get these aholes out of their community?  No.  However, most communities in the world aren't like that.

For fuc4s sake, bin laden lived in a goddamn city next to a military academy for 10 years.  People talk.  He should have been found.

Anyway, if you don't like my solution, propose another one, and tell me how it works.
Otherwise, tell me exactly what you do on a day to day basis to stop bad guys .

If you can't do either, and still want to PC my ass, fine, but ill tell you one thing, the person I know who has by far the most knowledge of the religion, all of its sects, dialects, behaviors, etc (intel /linguist marine who goes to these places) thinks basically all the PC stuff is a pile of crap, and people have no goddamn clue.

And after doing my own reading and research, he's pretty much right.

[dogmush]

You're suggesting slaughtering entire villages of innocent people and I'm reducto ad absurdium?

Look man, I'm not going all PC.  I've spent a fair amount of time traveling to various muslim heavy places, and have been forced to work with the "modern, moderate" arabs.  In general, Islam is a religion of conquest and murder.  Many of the people worldwide that practice it are not cool people.  To say the least.

My experience has been that the peaceful coexisting islam you see in the US and western Europe is the radical sect, and "mainstream" islam (as much as it can be pinned down) would be all about violent conquest if they 1. weren't mostly at starvation level existence and 2. thought they could win.

That said, let's slow down for a moment.  We are the United States of America. We are the Good Guys. We DO NOT slaughter entire towns because someone that once lived there murdered some of us. Period. Full Stop.  If you're moral code is actually OK with that, and you're not just venting, you are missing something important.

That said, Yes we can't just hide in our heads in the sand.  We need to hunt the actual terrorists down, we need to cut their logistical and financial support, we need to destroy their training areas, and if a Nation-State is foolish enough to get caught supporting them we need to declare war on that nation and remove it's ability to give that support.

And American Soldiers will die doing this. And there will be some innocent deaths in the shitholes we're fighting in, despite our best efforts. And it STILL won't be 100% and some innocent Americans will die occasionally because despite our best efforts Evil will occasionally get lucky.  *expletive deleted*ing deal with it. it WILL happen.  Because the alternative is to become as evil as that we're fighting, and still lose.


I have a tattoo on my leg that says, in german: "And when you look long into an abyss the abyss also looks into you."  It's a partial quote.  Fully it says:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Dude was wrong about a lot, but a stopped clock and all that.  As a US soldier it's on my leg to remind me that there is actually good and evil, and I need to be on the right side.  We're fighting monsters here, and you need to take a deep breath and back away from the abyss.

[freakazoid]

Anyway, if you don't like my solution, propose another one, and tell me how it works.

Well to get rid of the view that it is the religion of violence, it certainly wouldn't be to go out and slaughter a bunch of innocent people because they happened to be in the wrong area.

[birdman]

You're suggesting slaughtering entire villages of innocent people and I'm reducto ad absurdium?

Look man, I'm not going all PC.  I've spent a fair amount of time traveling to various muslim heavy places, and have been forced to work with the "modern, moderate" arabs.  In general, Islam is a religion of conquest and murder.  Many of the people worldwide that practice it are not cool people.  To say the least.

My experience has been that the peaceful coexisting islam you see in the US and western Europe is the radical sect, and "mainstream" islam (as much as it can be pinned down) would be all about violent conquest if they 1. weren't mostly at starvation level existence and 2. thought they could win.

That said, let's slow down for a moment.  We are the United States of America. We are the Good Guys. We DO NOT slaughter entire towns because someone that once lived there murdered some of us. Period. Full Stop.  If you're moral code is actually OK with that, and you're not just venting, you are missing something important.

Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
We destroyed those towns, and killed millions because of material support to those who killed us, and to prevent their desired, and acted upon conquest of others.  The total number of US civilians killed in WWII that motivated that?  Less than the number killed on 9/11.

Are you saying we weren't the good guys then?  We annihilated whole countries, with -civilian- death tolls in the millions, because those civilians were residents of countries that presented a danger to our way of life.

My 'moral high ground' is nothing more esoteric than that of the US armed forces of the "greatest generation".  We burned to the ground cities of civilians who for the mot part had no direct involvement in the planned execution of whole races, and the expressed desire of conquest. 

How is this different? 

Now, I a, jet making an argument here that simply attempting to root out a radical element on our own is extremely difficult when the parent group of at element on the whole does nothing to help, and is not motivated to do so partially because due to our "precision", the existence of that radical element causes them less pain at our hands. 

My argument (hey if you can quote Nietzsche) is Machiavellian, but other than some relatively recent "morality", that even I actually do have an issue with, it does work. 

My overall point was that the type of response we currently employ doesn't deter, because there is no opposing societal pain.  The radical Elements are thus emboldened...my idea is that if we don't act disproportionate NOW, the radical elements will eventually employ an attack(ie NBC) that will cross the same bounds we crossed in WWII and it would become much more societally acceptable to simply adopt "either us or them" in which case, we will win.  By acting now, to encourage the rooting out or eliminating of those elements, I propose that it will, in the long run, prevent the total annihilation of that society.

[AZRedhawk44]

Your argument has merits at the logical angle, birdman... but it falls apart at the moral level.

The difference between 1940's America and 1940's military, versus that of today:

1. Technological advancement of armaments and tactics.  Precision targeting was not to the state of the art it is today.
2. The battlefront:  There were battle lines.  Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers putting their lives between US troops and Hitler and the heads of the Nazi party.  Decapitating that movement dictated that the fortified positions be overwhelmed.
3. Industrial control and "spheres of influence."  I really enjoyed studying the economic angles of WWII in the Pacific theater, as well as the SCAP occupation, in college.  Did my thesis on it.  We bombed Nagasaki/Hiroshima for several reasons, but none of them was to attempt to culturally recondition the Japanese people.  It was to terrify the Emperor, to destroy economic resources in those cities, to weaken safe harbors for the Japanese navy, and to test the effectiveness of the weapon.  We fire-bombed Dresden to destroy the manufacturing facilities there and drive fortified positions away from the location.  Not to re-educate German citizens.

Today... we'd end up going to war with a combined EU, Russia and China if we started tomahawking entire Bedouin villages just because some radical came from one.

We have supersecretsquirrel satellites that can read my newspaper from high orbit.  We have NSA supercomputers that sniff every bit of data I send from my fracking laptop, even if it's encrypted.  We have domestic law enforcement disregarding 230 year old civic virtues and getting away with it.  You probably know of a dozen things more to add to my modest list of 3 surveillance police state bothersome attributes, even more empowering.

We've already thrown away enough civility in the form of proper investigative technique.

Shall we also throw away the last remnant of civility so that we can couple brutality to the authoritarian self-entitlement to our rights?

[De Selby]

Terrorism - mass killing intended to scare a population into submission.

Blowing up whole towns to make an example is terrorism just the same as the marathon bombing, it just has more victims.

We should not be supporting terrorism.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Terrrorism does not require mass killings at all. Strategic ones

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Tallpine]

Terrrorism does not require mass killings at all. Strategic ones

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not even sure the marathon bombing death toll rises to the level of "mass" 

[Dannyboy]

I'm not even sure the marathon bombing death toll rises to the level of "mass" 

Tell that to the Feds that charged the kid with using a WMD.

[Nick1911]

I'm not even sure the marathon bombing death toll rises to the level of "mass" 

Fun fact, on the same day 75 people were killed and 350 wounded in terrorist attacks in Iraq.
Divided with an even distribution, around 100 people in America die in motor vehicle accidents every day.
Divided with an even distribution, around 12 people in America die in the course of the workplace duties every day.
And yet, all focus is on an event where.... 3 people died? 

Calling it a big deal is utterly lacking in perspective, IMO.

[HankB]

. . . Today... we'd end up going to war with a combined EU, Russia and China if we started tomahawking entire Bedouin villages just because some radical came from one.

I get the point, but in a literal sense, I really don't think there's that much international love for those people.

As long as we're playing the numbers game, a few years back, someone reported the results of several surveys purporting to show that illegal aliens kill about 25 people a day in the USA, counting both vehicular crashes and outright murder. Compare that to losses in the Middle East.

( Disclaimer: Source is WND    http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/  )