Of Course Terrorism Can Be Stopped

[dblack]

I'm here to discuss ideas, not compare the size of my 'qualifications'.

If that were true you'd be asking questions instead of making statements....

Uh... I did. I ignored your personal taunting and asked you if you agreed with my post or not. I was hoping that you might change gears and actually debate the issue. If you just want to puff out your chest and strut around, then please - dismiss my posts altogether.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist.

Well the left doesn't make that easy now do they?

We had one attack on our soil during both terms of GW. How many have we had under DumBama??????

But people (mostly on the left) freaked out with George Bush's measures. They freaked out over the Patriot Act, they freaked out by detaining terrorists and not giving them a trial, they freaked out because our agencies were spying on our email and phone calls, they freaked out when they found out we were pouring water on somebody's face.

We can't expect our military to be the only people that make sacrifices. We have to make sacrifices ourselves if we want to get some control over these problems.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not easy to stop terrorism

It used to be you could stop them by calling them " Radical Islamic Terrorits"

But now, it seems, you need to call them "evil losers" to drive them into the shadows

If you're afraid to go into the shadows after them, you'll be forever cleaning up the carnage and wondering why they weren't picked up before they acted. Your way hasn't worked since the first WTC bombing in '93. Of course for 16 of those years you had traitorous dirtbags for presidents and GWB who figured we were still pissed enough to go after Saddam. It destroyed al-Qaida but left the door wide open for ISIS when Barry waddled away chewing on his fingernails.

Which is more likely to stop terrorism?

Calling them "Radical Islamic Terrorists" or "evil losers"?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Winning the battle and winning the war are two different things. Where is the Mafia today?

To extrapolate on your solution, why don't we do the same to families of murderers in the US? Your 28 year old son gets pissed at his wife or girlfriend, and he chokes her to death. Why should we come after you simply because you raised your son?

People should be responsible for their own actions--not their family. If I go to a bar and get drunk, hit a mini-van and kill the family of five inside, why should my mother be put to death?

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

Stupid analysis, because the difference is the families are complicit in the fact that they support the ideology of the terrorist and allow the actions to happen in most cases by not stopping them, or reporting their plans for investigation.

All of them? I only read one or two stories where that was the case.

I was raised by a mother with strong religious beliefs. I went to an all Catholic school as a child, had to attend church every Sunday and religious holidays, I was even an alter boy.

By the time I became an adult, I abandoned my mothers religion. In spite of the constant barrage of religion growing up, I became non-religious. My mother couldn't help it no matter how hard she tried. My sister is a different situation, she, like my mother is very religious till today.

Sometimes kids turn out exactly opposite of how you tried to raise them. It's not my mothers fault I'm not religious or don't attend church. That was my decision.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're equating your western values of life while the enemy does not. If you'd read the entire thread, you'd see I made it clear this is a tactic to use against jihadist butchers.

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

 

[polarbear]

You're equating your western values of life while the enemy does not. If you'd read the entire thread, you'd see I made it clear this is a tactic to use against jihadist butchers.

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're equating your western values of life while the enemy does not. If you'd read the entire thread, you'd see I made it clear this is a tactic to use against jihadist butchers.

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the thread is about punishing the family of the terrorists which I'm against.

I don't believe that the family (unless proven they had something to do with a terrorist attack) should bear the responsibility of what their adult children do.

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

Liberals constantly blame shift. They don't blame the murderer with the gun, they blame the gun, they blame the manufacture of the gun, they blame the seller of the gun. We conservative blame the individual and nobody else.

The liberals blame the failure of black America on slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, white privilege..... We conservatives blame the individual black people for their own failures.

If you are a conservative, then you must believe in personal responsibility and individual decision making. And if that's so, how can you punish the parents of a terrorist when they in fact might have raised that child to think the exact opposite? When an individual commits a heinous crime, we punish the person who committed such crime--not anybody associated with them. Innocent people should not be put to death for the actions of another.

 

[polarbear]

You're equating your western values of life while the enemy does not. If you'd read the entire thread, you'd see I made it clear this is a tactic to use against jihadist butchers.

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the thread is about punishing the family of the terrorists which I'm against.

I don't believe that the family (unless proven they had something to do with a terrorist attack) should bear the responsibility of what their adult children do.

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

Liberals constantly blame shift. They don't blame the murderer with the gun, they blame the gun, they blame the manufacture of the gun, they blame the seller of the gun. We conservative blame the individual and nobody else.

The liberals blame the failure of black America on slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, white privilege..... We conservatives blame the individual black people for their own failures.

If you are a conservative, then you must believe in personal responsibility and individual decision making. And if that's so, how can you punish the parents of a terrorist when they in fact might have raised that child to think the exact opposite? When an individual commits a heinous crime, we punish the person who committed such crime--not anybody associated with them. Innocent people should not be put to death for the actions of another.

Turns out I was wrong calling you a liberal. Very likely I committed that error before my morning coffee kicked in. The part about the family and how they should be dealt with has to be differentiated according to the location. If they are in the US there are more options than in a virtually lawless environment controlled by ISIS. Nevertheless this is a war on terror and any person suspected of having supported even only indirectly such an act should not be afforded the presumption of innocence till proven innocent. Much the same idea as a security clearance procedure should be followed, where the applicant has to qualify instead of presumed to be qualified till proven otherwise. I would consider the failure to notify the authorities if a family member or associate of a person or a group of persons were privy to information that could have prevented an act of terrorism as having collaborated and/or participated in a conspiracy with the perpetrator(s)...if they are not natural US citizens their citizenship should be revoked and then sentence pronounced as being guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder.
All in all pretty well the same procedure that is still in use for anyone who was a direct or indirect participant in the holocaust but acquired US citizenship.
Instead of deporting them to Israel this lot could be deported to one of the Sunni Muslim countries that vowed to stop ISIS and let them decide what kind of punishment is appropriate.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Show me where your methods have ever worked?

It’s a funny coincidence that just yesterday I turned on a FM radio and there was a conversation there going on concerning an eye for an eye option in eradicating terrorism and there was an example of its successful implementation given where the Bolsheviks quenched the peasants’ uprising in a rather short time using almost the same tactics as Tom Horn offered.

The main thought was you can’t apply conventional justice system to terrorists. It can only make them contemptuously spit in your eyes. You’ve got to do something drastically different when you confront an existential threat; you’ve got to hit them where it hurts. Harsh as it may sound I for one like Tom’s idea.



Tambov Rebellion - Wikipedia

 

[IM2]

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist.

Well the left doesn't make that easy now do they?

We had one attack on our soil during both terms of GW. How many have we had under DumBama??????

But people (mostly on the left) freaked out with George Bush's measures. They freaked out over the Patriot Act, they freaked out by detaining terrorists and not giving them a trial, they freaked out because our agencies were spying on our email and phone calls, they freaked out when they found out we were pouring water on somebody's face.

We can't expect our military to be the only people that make sacrifices. We have to make sacrifices ourselves if we want to get some control over these problems.

I do think we had more than one terrorist attack under Bush if we use the same qualifications we used with Obama as to what a terrorist attack was.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist.

Well the left doesn't make that easy now do they?

We had one attack on our soil during both terms of GW. How many have we had under DumBama??????

But people (mostly on the left) freaked out with George Bush's measures. They freaked out over the Patriot Act, they freaked out by detaining terrorists and not giving them a trial, they freaked out because our agencies were spying on our email and phone calls, they freaked out when they found out we were pouring water on somebody's face.

We can't expect our military to be the only people that make sacrifices. We have to make sacrifices ourselves if we want to get some control over these problems.

I do think we had more than one terrorist attack under Bush if we use the same qualifications we used with Obama as to what a terrorist attack was.

Okay, then find one. Yes, we have had mass murders as we always have, but that's not terrorism. There were attempted terrorist attacks under Bush, but no successful ones.

So how did Bush do it? We captured terrorists in the field and interrogated them. DumBama simply droned the terrorists and got no information from them. Even if he did have terrorists captured, he promised no intense interrogations on prisoners.

 

[IM2]

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist.

Well the left doesn't make that easy now do they?

We had one attack on our soil during both terms of GW. How many have we had under DumBama??????

But people (mostly on the left) freaked out with George Bush's measures. They freaked out over the Patriot Act, they freaked out by detaining terrorists and not giving them a trial, they freaked out because our agencies were spying on our email and phone calls, they freaked out when they found out we were pouring water on somebody's face.

We can't expect our military to be the only people that make sacrifices. We have to make sacrifices ourselves if we want to get some control over these problems.

I do think we had more than one terrorist attack under Bush if we use the same qualifications we used with Obama as to what a terrorist attack was.

Okay, then find one. Yes, we have had mass murders as we always have, but that's not terrorism. There were attempted terrorist attacks under Bush, but no successful ones.

So how did Bush do it? We captured terrorists in the field and interrogated them. DumBama simply droned the terrorists and got no information from them. Even if he did have terrorists captured, he promised no intense interrogations on prisoners.

Mass murders are terrorist acts. And 9-11 happened during Bush.

So when did Bush capture BIn Laden?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what you are doing is picking and choosing who's family we execute and who's family we don't?

Understandable if the family has similar connections to terrorist organizations, but no parent can control the actions of their children once they are adults. They are responsible for their children when they are children.

Should we have killed the father of Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing? His parents divorced when he was ten years old and was raised by his father. From what I've read, his father was never in any trouble yet alone being a radical.

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the thread is about punishing the family of the terrorists which I'm against.

I don't believe that the family (unless proven they had something to do with a terrorist attack) should bear the responsibility of what their adult children do.

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

Liberals constantly blame shift. They don't blame the murderer with the gun, they blame the gun, they blame the manufacture of the gun, they blame the seller of the gun. We conservative blame the individual and nobody else.

The liberals blame the failure of black America on slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, white privilege..... We conservatives blame the individual black people for their own failures.

If you are a conservative, then you must believe in personal responsibility and individual decision making. And if that's so, how can you punish the parents of a terrorist when they in fact might have raised that child to think the exact opposite? When an individual commits a heinous crime, we punish the person who committed such crime--not anybody associated with them. Innocent people should not be put to death for the actions of another.

Turns out I was wrong calling you a liberal. Very likely I committed that error before my morning coffee kicked in. The part about the family and how they should be dealt with has to be differentiated according to the location. If they are in the US there are more options than in a virtually lawless environment controlled by ISIS. Nevertheless this is a war on terror and any person suspected of having supported even only indirectly such an act should not be afforded the presumption of innocence till proven innocent. Much the same idea as a security clearance procedure should be followed, where the applicant has to qualify instead of presumed to be qualified till proven otherwise. I would consider the failure to notify the authorities if a family member or associate of a person or a group of persons were privy to information that could have prevented an act of terrorism as having collaborated and/or participated in a conspiracy with the perpetrator(s)...if they are not natural US citizens their citizenship should be revoked and then sentence pronounced as being guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder.
All in all pretty well the same procedure that is still in use for anyone who was a direct or indirect participant in the holocaust but acquired US citizenship.
Instead of deporting them to Israel this lot could be deported to one of the Sunni Muslim countries that vowed to stop ISIS and let them decide what kind of punishment is appropriate.

Again, we totally agree. But I think Tom's idea is that we should execute the family simply for being the family of terrorists whether they were involved with their offsprings plans or not; to teach a lesson to other potential terrorists. That's what I was objecting to.

Yes, if the family did not notify authorities and knew about the plan, sure they should be held responsible. If we don't have enough evidence to convict them, then we should throw them out of the country. I agree with all that. But to out and out execute them?

We have to be careful too about overreacting to potential terrorist threats. In California, neighbors stated the knew something was amiss, but were afraid to report it because they didn't want to get into trouble if they were wrong. Over here, a hotel clerk got into trouble because she texted her friend about a guy dressed in Muslim garb saying that he was talking about his allegiance to ISIS. Her girlfriend called 911 and they jumped the guy. Now he's suing the hotel.

Avon hotel clerk who falsely accused Emirati man of pledging allegiance to ISIS may face criminal charges

 

[polarbear]

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the thread is about punishing the family of the terrorists which I'm against.

I don't believe that the family (unless proven they had something to do with a terrorist attack) should bear the responsibility of what their adult children do.

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

Liberals constantly blame shift. They don't blame the murderer with the gun, they blame the gun, they blame the manufacture of the gun, they blame the seller of the gun. We conservative blame the individual and nobody else.

The liberals blame the failure of black America on slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, white privilege..... We conservatives blame the individual black people for their own failures.

If you are a conservative, then you must believe in personal responsibility and individual decision making. And if that's so, how can you punish the parents of a terrorist when they in fact might have raised that child to think the exact opposite? When an individual commits a heinous crime, we punish the person who committed such crime--not anybody associated with them. Innocent people should not be put to death for the actions of another.

Turns out I was wrong calling you a liberal. Very likely I committed that error before my morning coffee kicked in. The part about the family and how they should be dealt with has to be differentiated according to the location. If they are in the US there are more options than in a virtually lawless environment controlled by ISIS. Nevertheless this is a war on terror and any person suspected of having supported even only indirectly such an act should not be afforded the presumption of innocence till proven innocent. Much the same idea as a security clearance procedure should be followed, where the applicant has to qualify instead of presumed to be qualified till proven otherwise. I would consider the failure to notify the authorities if a family member or associate of a person or a group of persons were privy to information that could have prevented an act of terrorism as having collaborated and/or participated in a conspiracy with the perpetrator(s)...if they are not natural US citizens their citizenship should be revoked and then sentence pronounced as being guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder.
All in all pretty well the same procedure that is still in use for anyone who was a direct or indirect participant in the holocaust but acquired US citizenship.
Instead of deporting them to Israel this lot could be deported to one of the Sunni Muslim countries that vowed to stop ISIS and let them decide what kind of punishment is appropriate.

Again, we totally agree. But I think Tom's idea is that we should execute the family simply for being the family of terrorists whether they were involved with their offsprings plans or not; to teach a lesson to other potential terrorists. That's what I was objecting to.

Yes, if the family did not notify authorities and knew about the plan, sure they should be held responsible. If we don't have enough evidence to convict them, then we should throw them out of the country. I agree with all that. But to out and out execute them?

We have to be careful too about overreacting to potential terrorist threats. In California, neighbors stated the knew something was amiss, but were afraid to report it because they didn't want to get into trouble if they were wrong. Over here, a hotel clerk got into trouble because she texted her friend about a guy dressed in Muslim garb saying that he was talking about his allegiance to ISIS. Her girlfriend called 911 and they jumped the guy. Now he's suing the hotel.

Avon hotel clerk who falsely accused Emirati man of pledging allegiance to ISIS may face criminal charges

I think the idea to execute the whole family was a result of the emotions many people had when they have seen who the targets and victims were in Manchester. You can`t blame anyone for that.
It`s an indication of empathy that gets mixed with outrage and anger in the initial phase.
The anger diminishes with time and I am sure that when it comes right down to it even the most hardened Vietnam War Vet would run into the emotional barrier that is built into us, preventing us to commit outright murder. I am quite certain the author of this OP has the same instinctive emotional reaction as you and I had when he has seen that picture of the 3 year old Syrian boy Alan Kurdi who was found on a Mediterranean beach. It would be a confusing mixture of utter sadness and extreme anger towards whoever or whatever was the cause. It`s one thing to see something like that on your TV and quite another for those who were at the scene. We must all be aware of this and consider it when the time comes to care for our War Vets. I know first hand that emotional wounds hurt by far more and longer than physical wounds So please keep that in mind....and have a nice day as often as possible despite of all these problems

 

[EvilCat Breath]

He isn`t picking and choosing the way you expanded it beyond the war on radical islamic terrorism.
T.McVeigh was not an islamic jihadist. He suggests we use the rules of war similar to the ones used during WW2 against Jihadis today. I don`t recall anyone like you complaining about Allied Bomber Command fire bombing the German civilians in order to break their will. Even to this day none of you bleeding heart liberals objected to that, most likely because you hate white Aryans in general including those who`s only "sin" was voting for D.J.Trump.
That`s why you are not nearly as concerned when white Anglo-Saxon kids get killed by Jihadis as you are if members of a different race get killed if we were to re-apply WW2 rules and methods to erase the entire jihadi clusterfuck.

WTF are you calling a liberal? No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist, but he was a terrorist. This what I meant by picking and choosing.

Since you knew that (No, McVeigh was not an Islamic terrorist) why are you using him to muddy the issue ? This thread is not about American citizens who went insane and committed an act of terror against their fellow citizens. Mc Veigh was executed and that was the end of it. He has no following that gets sponsored by rogue foreign states to continue what he started.
The problem we have to solve now has exponentially increased due to the idiotic foreign policy of the Obama admin, starting with the apology speech in Egypt and his cowardly stance towards Iran.
Muslims view cowards in the highest disdain it`s perhaps the most important characteristic of their culture. The fact that they manage to convince their suicide attack recruits with the prospect of heavenly rewards and financial rewards + privilege status for their family should tell you that you can not win them over by continuing to appease them.
There is no way to win them over, the only way is to win and this win requires the use of brute force, no quarter given as in a conventional war where the enemy wears a uniform to be distinguishable from non-combatants and does not hide behind human shields.
Combatants disguising themselves as civilians (aka Partisans) could be summarily executed, that was not a war crime and as far as I know it still applied in Vietnam.
The tactical response in the theater of war on foreign soil can not be limited to the type of actions a commander has at his disposal when confronting this type of enemy on friendly territory.
And what we are discussing here is a war on state sponsored terrorism on foreign soil that is used to launch attacks on our territory.
That requires nothing less than bringing the full spectrum of warfare, including psychological warfare to bear down on the enemy and his support.
We know from Muslims that their worst fear is public humiliation and the CIA operatives in the Abu Dhabi prison had that part right how to crush and demoralize these bastards.

If they had to contemplate that they would be paraded and publicly shamed like this by females, whom they consider inferior in the village they were hiding in that would be a lot more effective than killing them right away and killing them in a way that they think is an honorable death.
There is a reason why they hang or decapitate their victims and that is the final insult they enjoy to inflict on their enemies...like us, whenever they can.
We can`t possibly respond the way it would be effective to that extreme, but many of the countries that met with Pres.D.J. Trump in Saudi Arabia will have no qualms to do just that.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the thread is about punishing the family of the terrorists which I'm against.

I don't believe that the family (unless proven they had something to do with a terrorist attack) should bear the responsibility of what their adult children do.

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

Liberals constantly blame shift. They don't blame the murderer with the gun, they blame the gun, they blame the manufacture of the gun, they blame the seller of the gun. We conservative blame the individual and nobody else.

The liberals blame the failure of black America on slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, white privilege..... We conservatives blame the individual black people for their own failures.

If you are a conservative, then you must believe in personal responsibility and individual decision making. And if that's so, how can you punish the parents of a terrorist when they in fact might have raised that child to think the exact opposite? When an individual commits a heinous crime, we punish the person who committed such crime--not anybody associated with them. Innocent people should not be put to death for the actions of another.

Turns out I was wrong calling you a liberal. Very likely I committed that error before my morning coffee kicked in. The part about the family and how they should be dealt with has to be differentiated according to the location. If they are in the US there are more options than in a virtually lawless environment controlled by ISIS. Nevertheless this is a war on terror and any person suspected of having supported even only indirectly such an act should not be afforded the presumption of innocence till proven innocent. Much the same idea as a security clearance procedure should be followed, where the applicant has to qualify instead of presumed to be qualified till proven otherwise. I would consider the failure to notify the authorities if a family member or associate of a person or a group of persons were privy to information that could have prevented an act of terrorism as having collaborated and/or participated in a conspiracy with the perpetrator(s)...if they are not natural US citizens their citizenship should be revoked and then sentence pronounced as being guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder.
All in all pretty well the same procedure that is still in use for anyone who was a direct or indirect participant in the holocaust but acquired US citizenship.
Instead of deporting them to Israel this lot could be deported to one of the Sunni Muslim countries that vowed to stop ISIS and let them decide what kind of punishment is appropriate.

Again, we totally agree. But I think Tom's idea is that we should execute the family simply for being the family of terrorists whether they were involved with their offsprings plans or not; to teach a lesson to other potential terrorists. That's what I was objecting to.

Yes, if the family did not notify authorities and knew about the plan, sure they should be held responsible. If we don't have enough evidence to convict them, then we should throw them out of the country. I agree with all that. But to out and out execute them?

We have to be careful too about overreacting to potential terrorist threats. In California, neighbors stated the knew something was amiss, but were afraid to report it because they didn't want to get into trouble if they were wrong. Over here, a hotel clerk got into trouble because she texted her friend about a guy dressed in Muslim garb saying that he was talking about his allegiance to ISIS. Her girlfriend called 911 and they jumped the guy. Now he's suing the hotel.

Avon hotel clerk who falsely accused Emirati man of pledging allegiance to ISIS may face criminal charges

This is part of muslim training. They make statements and act suspicious just to encourage a complaint. This is part of terrorism. Make the people too afraid to make a report.

 

[Tom Horn]

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

I've seen you do this endless back and forth with other posters before which is why I shined you on when you started it with me. You continually mischaracterize what I've said trying to sit on your moral high ground of "American values" you seem to think are your private domain. I wonder if you have any idea about how we've won the wars we've won? Do you have any idea of how many German POWs Ike starved to death? Or what the calculations of dead Japanese were that Truman signed off on before he okayed Hiroshima? Or how enemy activity fell off after Americal tore apart the shithole called My Lai? Did you know Colin Powell was the Colonel who covered that up before the press latched onto it? Do you think that didn't happen several times? Were you saddened and tearful about the pics that came out of Abu Grabass? I wasn't. You're naive to believe you can equate you and your mother to the piece of shit who detonated a nail bomb amid a bunch of teenyboppers and their parents at a music show. His mother knew he'd gone mental and said nothing to alert the police to be on the lookout for him. If you don't believe hanging that ***** wouldn't put thousands of ME mothers on notice, you're too far gone to bother with.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Earlier you called me a liberal. If you agree with such tactics, it is you that support liberal polices.

I've seen you do this endless back and forth with other posters before which is why I shined you on when you started it with me. You continually mischaracterize what I've said trying to sit on your moral high ground of "American values" you seem to think are your private domain. I wonder if you have any idea about how we've won the wars we've won? Do you have any idea of how many German POWs Ike starved to death? Or what the calculations of dead Japanese were that Truman signed off on before he okayed Hiroshima? Or how enemy activity fell off after Americal tore apart the shithole called My Lai? Did you know Colin Powell was the Colonel who covered that up before the press latched onto it? Do you think that didn't happen several times? Were you saddened and tearful about the pics that came out of Abu Grabass? I wasn't. You're naive to believe you can equate you and your mother to the piece of shit who detonated a nail bomb amid a bunch of teenyboppers and their parents at a music show. His mother knew he'd gone mental and said nothing to alert the police to be on the lookout for him. If you don't believe hanging that ***** wouldn't put thousands of ME mothers on notice, you're too far gone to bother with.

No. If you read my posts, I said if the family was involved in any way, they should be held responsible for their actions. But to execute family members simply because they're family is ridiculous. If it were up to me, there would be torture before death for any terrorist caught. I'm all for holding the people who are responsible for any terrorist act, but not innocent people who probably had nothing to do with it.

 

[Tom Horn]

No. If you read my posts, I said if the family was involved in any way, they should be held responsible for their actions. But to execute family members simply because they're family is ridiculous. If it were up to me, there would be torture before death for any terrorist caught. I'm all for holding the people who are responsible for any terrorist act, but not innocent people who probably had nothing to do with it.

And again....who the **** said anything about "family members"? Did I mention his brothers or cousins or aunts and uncles? Very specific about who spawned the little coward and didn't bother socializing him or educating him or maintaining control over him to be something other than an animal. This ain't Ray in Cleveland's story yet you seem to think it is. EOT.

 

[LaDexter]

There were attempted terrorist attacks under Bush, but no successful ones.

Correct, because 911 was not done by anyone Islamic, it was done by Zionism + the W Administration.

 

[Tom Horn]

Correct, because 911 was not done by anyone Islamic, it was done by Zionism + the W Administration.

I've seen all the theories about this and have to come back to the same conclusion time and time again....it would have taken too many people to pull that off and there would be a death-bed confession by now. NO SALE.