Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course, the flip side of that is that the only people they're really fooling is themselves. Unless, of course, they're happy with the nation they're manipulating us into becoming.
This Never Should Have Been Published
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Of course, the flip side of that is that the only people they're really fooling is themselves. Unless, of course, they're happy with the nation they're manipulating us into becoming.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
do you have any thoughts that don't involve me?
I don't know why it is so hard for folks to understand. Not only does crap like this bring us down to their level, it fuels their cause. The guy is a martyr now and Americans sit here wondering why they hate us.
PsyOps
Pixelated
You;re a jazz player for gods sake!!! You're nothing if not imagination!!!! There is a whole host of ways the US could deal with 'terrorists' other than 10,000 pairs of boots OR becoming what we're fighting.
Then I will assume your comment was rhetorical and really not necessary. May I ask not to make discussion-stopping comments? I don't ever claim to be the smartest guy around, far from it (leaving myself wide open for the usual subjects to snark-in). So I like to take things in steps when I fail to see your complete motive.
I was asking specifically what the alternative to lighting off a car bomb in Damascus to kill Mughniyah could have been; not how could we have fought the war different. There are a lot of variables we don't know as to why the CIA and Israel chose to kill Mughniyah. It's very possible the US and Israel talked to the leaders of Damascus and said "We need to take this guy out. We prefer to do it with a sniper" and they said no. Maybe they actually demanded it be done with a car bomb; given this is the way they think. Maybe Israel dictated how it went down. But I asked you the way I did in response to this:
where you implied Mughniyah should have been arrested, charged with a crime, and tried. Last I understand how this war goes is the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" gave the president the authority to go after TERRORISTS in any country; which any country is considered the battlefield. Mughniyah was a top terrorist in Damascus, not a common criminal requiring any sort of due process. What would have been your alternative?
Last edited:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Arresting and trying terrorist has a few problems. First finding the guy and arresting him in a country that is hiding and protecting him.
Then after arrest you want to try this terrorist in New York while other terrorists are threatening to cause terrorist incidents to get him out, and he gets a slick lawyer and a frightened jury.
Arrest him and put him in Gitmo where he gets no trial and is turned loose by a President with no brains to rejoin his comrades.
Or trades him and 5 others for a coward and traitor.
If in Israel they convict him , jail him, and the terrorist take a hostage then they release a hundred of his comrades.
Nope to me a dead terrorist is a good terrorist.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. I am saying that we possess the power and used to have the moral authority to strongly suggest that his handlers/paymasters/associates take care of him for us or risk our displeasure.
Spy, investigate, find the pressure points. And use them.
PsyOps
Pixelated
So, you're saying we shouldn't FIGHT this war? We shouldn't get the enemy when we find them? We should convince someone else to do it for us?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
enjoy game! Going to a party, we can come back to this tomorrow. ...Larry, I tend to agree with you most of the time. And I do here.
Unfortunately, when dealing with extremes one must become extreme.
We should be capturing and video taping the "burial" of our enemies. In the case of Islamic Terrorists. We should be mutilating their bodies, facing them west, and violate all of their burial traditions. If they are that fundamental, they won't be looking for the after life and they will bare the consequences of their actions and truly fear their death.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Would that be effective and help us win or just motivate a whole bunch more over the edge who may otherwise have not?
I can agree that extreme measures have a place but, I'd argue for extremely effective. We become what we loath AND in the process not win. On the list of things we can do to DEFEAT them, is win, that's not on there, anywhere. In my view.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
OK, so, let's start with this; it seems you and I agree that this is a WAR and, therefore, has nothing to do with 'terrorists', yes? I mean, we didn't consider 'extreme' Nazi's or Kamikaze 'terrorists'; we considered them...the enemy.
Our problem is Vietnam, trying to have war both ways; real and not real. Police action, terrorists, agitators, radicals, and yet when we do the exact same things over the years, it's 'militia' or 'guerrilla' warfare, partisans, whatever. Point being organized, supported, on going fighting is not terrorism. '93, the embassies, the Cole, 9/11, those were not acts of terror, they were strikes in the war between fundamental Islam, as viewed by the Sunni's. We gotta take care to make ourselves understand the difference; Shia's don't attack the US.
So, Sunni pretty much equates to Saudi and we treat Saudi like we treat China; like they're the customer. Saudi could not be more vulnerable to US power and influence and yet, we refuse to exert it. There is our path to victory.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Semantics aside (I think that has to be a different discussion), you seem to believe Saudi Arabia represents the core of the radical factions of the Sunni. We have to remember they rejected OBL and expelled him from the country because of his radical views. Once Al Qaeda joined forces with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they turned against Saudi Arabia. The UN anti-terror program has received over $100 million from Saudi Arabia and they have openly denounced ISIS and al Qaeda. So I’m curious as to what pressure on Saudi Arabia would accomplish?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Wait. Hold up. It doesn't? Let's just start at the beginning.
itsrequired
New Member
Your theory is transparency in government is a bad thing? If it shouldn't be published, then we probably shouldn't do it!
PsyOps
Pixelated
Why did you snip out the entire part where I supported my claim?
We have to remember they rejected OBL and expelled him from the country because of his radical views. Once Al Qaeda joined forces with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they turned against Saudi Arabia. The UN anti-terror program has received over $100 million from Saudi Arabia and they have openly denounced ISIS and al Qaeda.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I didn't 'snip out' anything. I stopped right at the very beginning to see if we at least agree on the one fundamental truth to all of this. If we don't agree that Saudi is THE home of global jihad, fundamentalist Sunni Islam, that they supported it then, that they support it now, that they will forever and have simply used us to do their dirty work, what else is their to talk about?
Yeah, they through him out. They could have killed him. They didn't. Know why? Because there was and is a LOT of sympathy AND support then and now for fundamentalist Islam, the Sunni version. Why can't we simply accept the obvious??? This requires no thinking. None. It just is. The history of all this is very straightforward. The question is the complex one; have we been acting in the US national interest in our relationship with Saudi all these years or not so much?
That's what we ought to be talking about.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Amen to that.
We are FAR too secretive and voters can't make intelligent choices when we're being lied to and/or not given the simplest of facts and information year after year after decade after decade.
Trust the American people? Ha.