Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Reaction to the Nick Berg outrage
Topic Started: May 12 2004, 12:50 AM (1,725 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Everything I have heard indicates he was Jewish.

Maybe he had the Koran hoping it would help him if needed (by indicating he was one of them) or maybe he was reading it to learn about the people surrounding him. Or maybe they lied about him having it. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Thank you to everyone who took the time to expose Somerled for what he really is.

:kiss:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Maybe we can stop the personal arguement and stay on this topic, please.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
Doctortobe,
What if we had a terrorist cell spring up here in the U.S. where their members would do much the same thing - attack people and then blend into the crowds. Would you advocate the same solution?


No I wouldn't and you have given one of the reasons why. First, we would have law enforcement and intelligence operatives swarming all over the area and the suspects would be quickly apprehended. This is not the case in Iraq. In Iraq, the people do not view these attacks on American soldiers as wrong, they do not tell us who the person is that planned the attack. If their neighbors are acting suspiciously, they won't report them to Coalition forces. With the Americans, the incentive is there because they realize "Hey, I could die". There is no incentive with the Muslems because all they would realize is "Hey, Americans could die.... Cool".

As long as Muslems feel that they have no reason to help Americans and every reason not to, these attacks are not going to stop. Let's look at a couple real world examples to see why my way will work and the diplomatic way won't. I'll go ahead a cite the only times that the clerics have interceded on behalf of the Americans.

1. When we were ready to turn Fallujah into a parking lot, the clerics suddenly had an interest in maintaining the peace between Americans and the insurgents.

2. When we were ready to invade Najaf, the clerics suddenly wanted to try to get the Al-Sadr to stop his attacks.

Now, I want you to give me some instances where the Muslems have sprang to help the Coalition without feeling that their lives or shrines weren't in danger.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
doctortobe
May 14 2004, 01:07 PM
As long as Muslems feel that they have no reason to help Americans and every reason not to, these attacks are not going to stop.

I don't pretend to know how Muslim's feel. All I know is what is reported of the actions of some which implies how those particular ones feel. Based on what I do know, it seems to me that many Muslims fear for their lives. For that reason, they just go along with whatever their leaders and organizers say. Most of what we see is the actions of the extremists. The rest keep mostly silent so they can hang on to their lives. Some of the ones involved in the violence are probably just going along with it for the same reason.

Muslims needs leaders who will stand up strongly and loudly to condemn the brutality and brainwashing and to teach and advocate for more peaceful solutions to their problems. They also need the violent cowardly so-called leaders out of the way so they don't have to fear for their lives. I guarantee, if this was done, you would see the majority of Muslims follow along.

It's not "As long as Muslems feel that they have no reason to help Americans", it's "as long as Muslims feel that they and their families may suffer brutal torture and lose their lives for not actively standing in the way of Americans"...

Replace the bad leaders and organizers, work on rebuilding a better community structure that can combat future violators, and in time, things will turn around (IMO).

I just don't believe all Muslims are bad people, or even most.

Quote:
 
Now, I want you to give me some instances where the Muslems have sprang to help the Coalition without feeling that their lives or shrines weren't in danger.
There are none that I know of. Exactly!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
The problem is that you can't destroy their leaders without opening a can of worms either. Most of these leaders have set up headquarters in heavily residential areas or near shrines.

The reason that my way will work is that it will take advantage of the fact that Muslems will do just about anything to protect their homes. If they are forced to choose between verbal threats by the clerics and terrorists, and physical threats of artillary shells raining ever closer to their city, they will take out the clerics and terrorists for two reasons.

1. They KNOW that the shells will eventually start to destroy their city. They do not know whether the clerics and terrorists will make good on their threats.

2. They KNOW that they cannot stop the shells from coming in, the artillary positions will be heavily secured. However, they know that the clerics and the terrorist leaders are right in the middle of their city. They most probably know where they are, and they know that they are well armed enough to take them out.

The reason why the diplomatic solution will never work is that the Iraqis don't desire freedom yet. We are doing all the liberating for them and they are just sitting back. To them, it is acceptable for Americans to do all the fighting and, if some of them are killed in the process, that is all the better. We must FORCE them to start fighting for their own freedom. Only then will Muslems know the value of it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Quote:
 
The problem is that you can't destroy their leaders without opening a can of worms either. Most of these leaders have set up headquarters in heavily residential areas or near shrines.

Then we'll have to get creative.

Quote:
 
The reason that my way will work is that it will take advantage of the fact that Muslems will do just about anything to protect their homes. If they are forced to choose between verbal threats by the clerics and terrorists, and physical threats of artillary shells raining ever closer to their city, they will take out the clerics and terrorists for two reasons.

1. They KNOW that the shells will eventually start to destroy their city. They do not know whether the clerics and terrorists will make good on their threats.

2. They KNOW that they cannot stop the shells from coming in, the artillary positions will be heavily secured. However, they know that the clerics and the terrorist leaders are right in the middle of their city. They most probably know where they are, and they know that they are well armed enough to take them out.
I didn't say it wouldn't work. My problem is that it accomplishes a lot more than just working - namely the unnecessary deaths of many innocent people.

Quote:
 
The reason why the diplomatic solution will never work is that the Iraqis don't desire freedom yet. We are doing all the liberating for them and they are just sitting back. To them, it is acceptable for Americans to do all the fighting and, if some of them are killed in the process, that is all the better. We must FORCE them to start fighting for their own freedom. Only then will Muslems know the value of it.

They don't desire freedom because, having never had it, they don't appreciate what it is. In the meantime, they feel like their lives are at stake trying to encourage or experience it. It takes time and, yes, they need help. They don't want to fight because, as long as they feel no sense of security, they still fear for their lives to some degree. What they need IMO is to feel adequately protected, preferably by their own police, military, and intelligence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
doctortobe
May 14 2004, 01:56 PM
The problem is that you can't destroy their leaders without opening a can of worms either. Most of these leaders have set up headquarters in heavily residential areas or near shrines.

The key is to stop the propaganda by always discrediting it and when possible stop it at its source by drying up the funds that help spread that propaganda.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
ImpulseEngine
May 14 2004, 02:12 PM

They don't desire freedom because, having never had it, they don't appreciate what it is. In the meantime, they feel like their lives are at stake trying to encourage or experience it. It takes time and, yes, they need help. They don't want to fight because, as long as they feel no sense of security, they still fear for their lives to some degree. What they need IMO is to feel adequately protected, preferably by their own police, military, and intelligence.

IE you have made many excellent points in the last few posts regarding the plight of Muslims.
Why is it that their plight seems so impossibly hopeless?

1. Pakistan and India's relations are beyond strained. Problems include so called 'disputed lands' (see Kashmir).
2. The Palestinians hate the Isrealis. Problems also Include so called disputed lands.
3. The Saudis do not allow so called 'outsiders' into their country at all.
4. Iran has been an enemy of America my entire lifetime.
5. Syria, Lybia and Iran have supported terror for decades.
6. Iraq made war with three of its neighbors in the last 30 years. (attacks on Isreal, Kuwait and Iran)

Does their hoplessness lie in the existence of the Christians, Buddhists, Jews and all other religions non-Muslim OR is it the Muslim's intolerance of non-Muslims that makes them their own worst enemy?

How in the Hell do you change all of that? I am glad you said we needed to get creative. Creative how? Ideas would be fun to hear.
Clinton got as creative as he could at attempting a peace accord, remember?

Where is the answer? I feel it may likely be a Century or more before there is a balance reached within the faith of Islam and its followers, if ever.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Anova :
These people are either criminals (of the worst kind !) and should be treated as such (and dealt with once caught through the international or national (of where ever they were when the did the deed)) criminal system, or they should be treated like a soldier (and afforded military POW treatment - you can't have it both ways.


I don't want it either way you silly little git. They are niether Soldiers nor criminals. They are terrorists. Hence the use of the word when describing them.

You save POW status and geneva convetion protect for Uniformed enmey combatants.

You save due process for criminals.

You give terrorists the status of non-people if:
They are caught armed and in civilian clothes.
They are found to qualify as terrorists through either a court or military tribunal.
Once found guilty, they have no rights and they become the property of the nation they were acting against. To be treated and disposed of as that nation sees fit.

Now, take your peusdointellectual backside to the correct thread and adress Minuets statements directly or stop your whining. She accused you of lying and I'm waiting for a refutation.

ANOVA
The anti-Somerled
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
If you really want to see something disgusting, check out this thread: http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10642

This the forum for the Bill Maher sycophant and political gadfly, Arianna Huffington.

Here's a sample of the discussion...
Quote:
 
My guess is this: Yes, he was working with Al Queda and the CIA because Al Qeuda is a CIA/Mossad supported organization. Something happened, perhaps the prison abuses made him decide he was going to turn and expose someone, so the CIA thought they could kill two birds with one stone; get rid of a guy no longer loyal, AND use the execution footage to hopefully turn public opinion. I think he's in an orange jumpsuit because the CIA spooks took him from US MP custody.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Jagalom Shaarek
May 14 2004, 04:16 PM
How in the Hell do you change all of that? I am glad you said we needed to get creative. Creative how? Ideas would be fun to hear.

:rotfl: I was afraid someone would ask me that!

I certainly don't have all the answers. My arguments have been intended not so much as a complete solution, but a refutation of the idea of indiscriminate attacks.

I believe it would involve heavy reliance on intelligence (so we had better fix it if it's broken). That knowledge could be used to identify the people, their specific whereabouts, and their connections. From there, their funding and resources must be cut off. Then military operations would be needed to capture or kill the leaders and organizers themselves. I realize this is easier said than done, but if it was considered impossible, it wouldn't be our approach to fighting global terrorism like it already is.

With the leaders out of the way, we would need to help to put new leaders in place much in the same way as we are doing in Iraq. But we will need to do this in more countries than just Iraq. After that, there would be a lot of diplomatic work to do.

All of this will take a long time; at least a couple of decades IMO, maybe longer. But hopefully, things would get safer for us as we move along.

What concerns me though is that we won't ever get started. The U.S. could play a key role in straightening out the Middle East mess. But we switch our own leaders so often and everyone has different ideas about what will work best. What some start won't necessarily be finished by the successors. Just look at how differently Clinton and Bush have approached the problems. That in itself could prevent any workable solution for a long long time.

That's why an organization like the UN is needed at least in principle. Too bad it's far from perfect. Maybe we should be fixing it or else founding a better one. There needs to be some constant in whatever solution is going to work.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
May 14 2004, 05:03 PM
I believe it would involve heavy reliance on intelligence (so we had better fix it if it's broken). That knowledge could be used to identify the people, their specific whereabouts, and their connections. From there, their funding and resources must be cut off. Then military operations would be needed to capture or kill the leaders and organizers themselves. I realize this is easier said than done, but if it was considered impossible, it wouldn't be our approach to fighting global terrorism like it already is.

The more time progresses, the more I'm convinced that western society does not have the stomach for what is necessary to "fix" the intelligence agencies.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
The U.S. could play a key role in straightening out the Middle East mess.


I disagree with the premise that it could ever really get straightened out. I think that all we can do is act in the best interest of the United States and our allies. And if they (Arabs) want our help, perhaps offer it. Right now they want our money and our silence (i.e., "give us large amounts of foriegn aid, but be quiet while we blame you for every ill in the muslim world the we create for ourselves so our people won't get angry at us.")

Containment until we ween ourselves from oil and then isolation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I agree 38. Containment, covert action to infiltrate and weed out the extremeists until we can break the addiction to petroleum then isolation. Let them figure out how to rise out of their dark ages.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus