Do you think it's possible to win a war on terror

[Dr.Drock]

Pretty cut and dry

 

[auditor0007]

Pretty cut and dry

Yes. Very simply, everytime they kill one of us, we kill one-hundred of them. They'll submit eventually or be wiped out.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Pretty cut and dry

Yes. Very simply, everytime they kill one of us, we kill one-hundred of them. They'll submit eventually or be wiped out.

I dunno, seems like to me if your response to killing one of us is to kill 100 people you'd create a lot of terrorists who were angry about the people we killed.


Seems like a never-ending cycle.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes....

But we have to stop this politically correct bullshit, go whole hog, and stop pulling punches... open up ever means of attack at our disposal.. show zero tolerance for rogue nations that coddle or support these terrorist groups... the current way we have been trying to handle this leads us nowhere

You don't retaliate against a murderous attacker with a slap on the arm, and you don't pussyfoot around with terrorists

 

[Douger]

War on drugs.
War on poverty.
War on terruh.
War on stupidity.
All failing and will continue to do so.

War on Freedom ? WINNING !
Why ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM]YouTube - ‪Exclusive: Charlie Sheen Says He's 'Not Bipolar but 'Bi-Winning' (02.28.11)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

Terrorism is a tactic that has been employed since the beginning of time. It will never be wiped out. You respond to terrorism just like you would respond to any crime.

 

[Google]

We have a war that whose goals are not defined, what does victory look like? This president nor Bush properly defined what victory is.

It took us less time to conquer Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan than a third world shit hole like Afghanistan. We must elect someone that will actually end these endless military adventures.

 

[Robert]

Pretty cut and dry

Yes. Very simply, everytime they kill one of us, we kill one-hundred of them. They'll submit eventually or be wiped out.

I dunno, seems like to me if your response to killing one of us is to kill 100 people you'd create a lot of terrorists who were angry about the people we killed.


Seems like a never-ending cycle.

And so the alternative is what? Are you suggesting people should just submit to what the terrorists want

 

[rightwinger]

You can't end terror

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go after organized groups that engage in terror tactics. The US has been very successful in going after terrorist leaders, funding and most importantly public support.

We still need to remain vigilent in cutting down on vulnerable targets, reporting suspicious behavior and monitoring terrorist activities.

We can't win totally, but we can come close

 

[High_Gravity]

We have a war that whose goals are not defined, what does victory look like? This president nor Bush properly defined what victory is.

It took us less time to conquer Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan than a third world shit hole like Afghanistan. We must elect someone that will actually end these endless military adventures.

Thats because in Germany and Japan we did what was necessary to win, at the time we were not concerned with winning the hearts and minds of the Japanese and German people. Right now in Afghanistan we are trying to win a war and not offend the Afghans at the same time, thats a recipe for failure.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes. Very simply, everytime they kill one of us, we kill one-hundred of them. They'll submit eventually or be wiped out.

I dunno, seems like to me if your response to killing one of us is to kill 100 people you'd create a lot of terrorists who were angry about the people we killed.


Seems like a never-ending cycle.

And so the alternative is what? Are you suggesting people should just submit to what the terrorists want

No, just take a more defend our country approach than attack all of their countries approach.

Killing people's families and attacking their homeland creates more hate than defending ones ports and borders.

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely not.

"Terror" isn't a thing.....It fails the bucket test.

Therefore, "terror(ism)" will always be in the eye of the totalitarian seeking to use it as a rubric to destroy our liberties.

Both Orwell and Rand were right.

 

[Robert]

I dunno, seems like to me if your response to killing one of us is to kill 100 people you'd create a lot of terrorists who were angry about the people we killed.


Seems like a never-ending cycle.

And so the alternative is what? Are you suggesting people should just submit to what the terrorists want

No, just take a more defend our country approach than attack all of their countries approach.

Killing people's families and attacking their homeland creates more hate than defending ones ports and borders.

The way I see it is that its a matter of economics we prosecute the war on terror in a way that makes it so damned expensive for the other side that they have no choice to either stop what they are doing or be forced to stop by the indigenous population.

And no I have no problem killing people familys to end the blood shed they are also part of the process in that they are responsible for curbing the animals unless they feel the pain equally there is no reason for the terror to stop

 

[Sunni Man]

I took my kid to the amusement park the other day.

This one arcade game had a bunch of Little guys that would pop up out of holes.

You had this mallet and you hit them on the head when one popped up.

But every time that you hit one on the head another one popped up somewhere else.

This could go on and on until you ran out of money.

I'm sure that there is an anology here.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And so the alternative is what? Are you suggesting people should just submit to what the terrorists want

No, just take a more defend our country approach than attack all of their countries approach.

Killing people's families and attacking their homeland creates more hate than defending ones ports and borders.

The way I see it is that its a matter of economics we prosecute the war on terror in a way that makes it so damned expensive for the other side that they have no choice to either stop what they are doing or be forced to stop by the indigenous population.

And no I have no problem killing people familys to end the blood shed they are also part of the process in that they are responsible for curbing the animals unless they feel the pain equally there is no reason for the terror to stop

I see, a person living in close proximity to a terrorist is partially at fault for what a terrorist does based on where they live. Or simple DNA, what my mother/father/brother/sister do is my fault also.

Okie dokie.

Suicide bombs aren't expensive, AK's aren't, box cutters aren't, but one thing that I do know is expensive and causing a huge impact on the people paying for it is our war on terror.

 

[Robert]

No, just take a more defend our country approach than attack all of their countries approach.

Killing people's families and attacking their homeland creates more hate than defending ones ports and borders.

The way I see it is that its a matter of economics we prosecute the war on terror in a way that makes it so damned expensive for the other side that they have no choice to either stop what they are doing or be forced to stop by the indigenous population.

And no I have no problem killing people familys to end the blood shed they are also part of the process in that they are responsible for curbing the animals unless they feel the pain equally there is no reason for the terror to stop

I see, a person living in close proximity to a terrorist is partially at fault for what a terrorist does based on where they live. Or simple DNA, what my mother/father/brother/sister do is my fault also.

Okie dokie.

Suicide bombs aren't expensive, AK's aren't, box cutters aren't, but one thing that I do know is expensive and causing a huge impact on the people paying for it is our war on terror.

Yet this is where we find ourselves the alternative is to simply submit to their demands again is this what you are suggesting?

Just how many of those people living in close proximity are in fact supporters? How many of those people give tactful approval of the actions of the terrorists because their is no cost to them? Again they are part of the problem they also have a responsibility to put an end to the activity of the terrorists groups.

 

[Bill Angel]

You can't end terror

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go after organized groups that engage in terror tactics. The US has been very successful in going after terrorist leaders, funding and most importantly public support.

We still need to remain vigilent in cutting down on vulnerable targets, reporting suspicious behavior and monitoring terrorist activities.

We can't win totally, but we can come close

I would mention the German terrorist group that was known as the Red Army Faction

At one time it was Germany's most violent and prominent left wing terror group.
Now it's ancient history and has been suppressed out of existence. It was started in 1970 and disbanded in 1998.

Perhaps there is a lesson with the group in how terrorist organizations and activities can be eliminated?

 

[Dr.Drock]

The way I see it is that its a matter of economics we prosecute the war on terror in a way that makes it so damned expensive for the other side that they have no choice to either stop what they are doing or be forced to stop by the indigenous population.

And no I have no problem killing people familys to end the blood shed they are also part of the process in that they are responsible for curbing the animals unless they feel the pain equally there is no reason for the terror to stop

I see, a person living in close proximity to a terrorist is partially at fault for what a terrorist does based on where they live. Or simple DNA, what my mother/father/brother/sister do is my fault also.

Okie dokie.

Suicide bombs aren't expensive, AK's aren't, box cutters aren't, but one thing that I do know is expensive and causing a huge impact on the people paying for it is our war on terror.

Yet this is where we find ourselves the alternative is to simply submit to their demands again is this what you are suggesting?

Just how many of those people living in close proximity are in fact supporters? How many of those people give tactful approval of the actions of the terrorists because their is no cost to them? Again they are part of the problem they also have a responsibility to put an end to the activity of the terrorists groups.

Submit to their demands? I haven't said anything remotely like that. I'm demanding border and port security, which no one in Washington on either side of the aisle takes seriously which leaves us wide open for terror attacks around the clock.

Terrorists love us being over there, closer proximity makes us easier to kill and what better motivator for a terrorist group to grow than to go after the people they deem responsbile for attacking their homeland/families?

 

[rightwinger]

You can't end terror

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go after organized groups that engage in terror tactics. The US has been very successful in going after terrorist leaders, funding and most importantly public support.

We still need to remain vigilent in cutting down on vulnerable targets, reporting suspicious behavior and monitoring terrorist activities.

We can't win totally, but we can come close

I would mention the German terrorist group that was known as the Red Army Faction

At one time it was Germany's most violent and prominent left wing terror group.
Now it's ancient history and has been suppressed out of existence. It was started in 1970 and disbanded in 1998.

Perhaps there is a lesson with the group in how terrorist organizations and activities can be eliminated?

The largest terrorist activity in the US was the loosely organized terror cells against Black Americans from 1865-1965. The KKK and other groups engaged in lynchings, bombings and arson to intimidate black Americans with tacit government support.

Federal involvement in State law enforcement as well as stricter laws put an end to the outright terror

 

[Montrovant]

Nothing to add, I'm just reiterating things already said. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy you can defeat. You can certainly defeat terrorist groups, but win the ill-defined war on terror? It's a ridiculous sound-bite label, it doesn't really mean anything specific, so no, it can't be won.

That in no way means terrorism shouldn't be fought against or that we must capitulate to terrorist demands.