MemberI hope we never see the day when Biden has to go into managed care, or worse. Trump is no spring chicken either, but if he had to leave the White House, at least we'd have Pence, and not the pig, as President.
2020 US Presidential Election
- Thread starter Born To Slay
- Start date
No, I think that I made it clear that I do not believe any country in the world has transparent intelligence agencies. Only the USA does this. Our intelligence failed, in a major way. Our intelligence has been weak since the mid-70's, when the transparency began.
Do you really believe that we should have simply done nothing, militarily, in response to the greatest attack on American soil, carried out with by notorious terrorists associated with, and harbored by, the Islamic State of Afghanistan?
Rather than put on a dog and pony show in Kabul and other cities, which Bush did, in the months following 9/11, we should have pattern bombed the areas near Pakistan, where the Al Qaeda's forces were burrowed, and not stopped until everything that breathes was dead.
Trump was 100% right, when he said that the generals were stupid. We've been in Afghanistan since 2001, we should have finished the conflict a long time ago.
So if Europe's intelligence isn't transparent yet they still had problems with terror attacks, then how is it our alleged transparency that got us attacked? It seems there must be something else going on here.
And as much as it seems crazy to do nothing, that's more or less what happened. What have we accomplished from being in Afghanistan? We spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives there and have nothing to show for it. We just did the expensive version of nothing and things are pretty okay now.
Trump is absolutely right that the Generals are stupid, though he's the President so he should really do more than bitch.
I agree that we should not have stayed in Afghanistan. We should have killed as many Al Qaeda and Taliban as possible, and withdrew, with the promise of far worse to come, if they ever decide to attack us again. The whole operation should have been finished before the end of 2001, or shortly thereafter.
One good suggestion came from a minor internet celebrity, some 15 years ago, named The Kid From Brooklyn. He suggested that we kill the entire family of any and all jihadists that carry out attacks against the United States. I believe that Trump also suggested this, long before he had decided to run for president. Whether it's Kamikaze-style terrorists, or the jihadists who attacked the WTC in 1993, and 2001, etc., it is clear that they are not afraid to lose their lives. This is why we should consider how they would react to their own families being killed, as a result of their actions. I believe that it would make them reconsider. It was an excellent idea, and not too late to implement it, should the snarling face of terrorism rear its ugly head once again.
She goes whichever way the wind blows (no pun intended). If it means votes, she'll say, or in some cases do, whatever it takes to win.
Do you take meds? You're still confused. YOUR REPLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT or discussion. You rambled on about Nazis and your comments about Trump and Afghanistan insinuated exactly what I interpreted. Then you backtracked pretending you were misunderstood. You have a screw loose.
Liberals on here support this guy.
Then they claim that they don't like Biden, they just don't like Trump.
I think several of the liberals on here might have dementia too.
I'm pretty sure that idea is illegal. You can't kill people that didn't do anything, imagine we did that here. The penalty for murder is now we kill whole families, that's insane.
Gotta say buddy, I chuckled at that pun lol.
But so will most of DC, how does that make her any worse than 95% of Congress?
PeteJ: "I know how to read, and what I interpret is always correct"
Also PeteJ:
She's a whore, she got to the vice presidency using sex, to obtain appointments paid for by the taxpayers of California. I have nothing but contempt for that idiot Biden, and the Democrats, for picking her. First, she accused Biden of being a racist, then they ran together on the same ticket. The nomination of this woman was a disgrace upon this great nation's history. The Democrats will pay for this, but the Republicans won't be the ones to extract it. The movements that helped them get in, by rioting in the streets, are now demanding their reward, which Liar Biden and the pig will not honor. It will be very interesting to see, I'm looking forward to the coming months.
If we had a new rule that said that anybody who commits an act of jihad in the United States will have their families wiped out, I guarantee that we would have no more trouble with them. This could save countless lives, and prevent future wars and conflicts. Put the onus on them. We would put out the warning, loud and clear, and if they ignore it, then we blow up their families. When you are dealing with barbarians, you have to fight fire with fire. They need to learn what the penalties for terrorism are. I think that Trump would do it, if he could. But, in case nobody noticed, there's been no terrorist attacks in the United States, since Trump took office. They know he's crazy, and that is the only thing they understand.
This was your FIRST POST on the topic, you troll:
"Holy shit, aged like milk. First they made a compromise with the Taliban after being unable to keep Afghanistan under control and now looks like the US military are just going to give up. Similar patterns happened to the names on the gravestones. Assuming Biden doesn't reverse it and that Trump isn't doing it out of spite against him. If this is what Trump means by being "tough" and how he would do so much "winning"... he might as well start digging the US grave in the graveyard of empires."
You finished it with citing an article about Trump withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your lying and BS is getting tiresome. A poster even agreed with my interpretation of that post. So, please, buzz off.
So why not expand it then? Anyone in the US who kills someone will have their whole family killed. I'm sure that would dramatically reduce murder domestically.
No this is not a good comparison. The killing of the family of a bank robber, who shot a guard that tried to prevent the robbery, would not be in our nation's best interest because the robber's actions were not political done with the intention of starting a war. No bank robber goes into it with the intention of commuting murder. It's wrong, but terrorism is different, they WANT to kill. They want to goad America into wars with Muslim countries. The Islamic terrorists feel that getting killed during jihad is a good thing, for themselves, because they believe that they will end up in paradise with 72 virgins. It is in our best interest to make them understand that if they harm one single American, their family will be executed, all of them including the wife, father, mother, children, grandparents, the whole clan. They want us to go to war, and if we do that, we are playing into their hands and they win, even if we kill them. Is it better to go to war, where potentially tens of thousands will die, or kill the members of a few terrorists' families, until they stop this shit? Trump understands this, and I think they know he's crazy enough to do something which they don't want or expect.
Would the murder rate go down in response to instituting this policy domestically? If the bank robber had a mother and father and brother and sister who he knew would all be killed if he shot the guard, would he be less likely to do it? I think so. Even if it's not politically motivated, he'd still be less likely to kill a guard knowing he'd then have to watch his whole family get shot in the face. So it seems you can make the same argument in favor of it domestically that you could against using it in the Middle East. You'd discourage murder and less people would die. So what's the issue?
Another good thing that Trump did, was to resume the federal death penalty. Unfortunately, Biden and the pig will probably reverse that. Biden used to be a proud supporter of Capital Punishment.
There is the latest lowlife to be executed, which was Nov. 19, 2020. Thank you, President Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ped-buried-texas-teen-alive-executed-n1248333
There is the latest lowlife to be executed, which was Nov. 19, 2020. Thank you, President Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ped-buried-texas-teen-alive-executed-n1248333
I have already given my answer, but you don't get it. Do you consider a bank robber who shoots a guard, during a crime, to be equivalent to a terrorist who hijacks a plane, and knocks down the World Trade Center which results in the deaths of three thousand people, resulting in a war that takes the lives of tens of thousands more, in addition to costing enormous amounts of money? Would you actually prefer full scale war, to the killing of the terrorists family, as retaliation and to set an example for other would be terrorists to consider?
Um, most terrorists don't do that. Most terrorists don't kill that many people or even close. You can't use an event that happened 20 years ago alone to justify policies this decade. Especially when we've already solved the terrorist problem.
Of course there's no need to use it, unless there's terrorism. But it took the deaths of tens of thousands of people to "solve the terrorist problem". If it starts again, rather than go to war, we could contain the terrorists with the method that I wrote about, which was not my brainchild, and keep the number of casualties at a minuscule fraction what conventional terrorism fighting entails. I don't expect this idea to ever come to fruition, because there's no spoils of war gained, by those who profit from conflict.
Very often the wife and some other family members of the terrorist know that the person is a terrorist, and if so, they should be punished. But, I don't believe everyone in the family should be punished. Also, the terrorists as they are already crazy anyway will most likely not mind if the whole family is executed as the family would have achieved martyrdom (in their eyes). There are cases where mothers send out their kids to be suicide bombers, so kin punishment will not have an effect on them.
I think it should be tested. Of course, we would put out a warning that any terrorists who harm Americans, will have their families killed. If they want proof, and commit acts of deadly terrorism, then bring down their families. I don't think that terrorism will be very popular against Americans, should it come back and is met with this type of response.
We can spend 20 years, billions of dollars, kill tens of thousands of people, to eliminate terrorism, the standard way. Or, we could try this and perhaps nobody has to die. I personally do not think that terrorists want to cause their spouse, children, parents, grandparent, aunts, uncles, etc., to be put to death because of their own actions. How many people would volunteer to be a terrorist, if they knew this is going to happen?
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families," Trump said during an appearance on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" in December 2015. "They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hters-did-an-airstrike-in-syria-do-just-that/
If they care so much about their families, why do people sign their kids away to be blown up? Lilah made a good point there and you didn't really touch upon it.
How did you solve the "terrorist problem?" You should tell Europe this solution.
Punished, how? I know you neocons and liberals won't like the only solution: they lose their citizenship and naturalization privileges. You repatriate the terrorist and their relatives back to country of origin or if they were born there, to the country of their ethnic background (in the case of more than one, they can choose one).
It's more humane than killing them and saves on the cost of incarceration or trying to establish terrorist links.
ISIS recruits would probably be unconcerned as long as their own demise preceded that of their relatives. This is from Olivier Roy's Jihad and Death: The Appeal of Islamic State.
'Most radicals are deeply immersed in today's 'youth culture'...they go to nightclubs, pick up girls, smoke and drink...[there are] a surprising number of arrests for drink driving, another sign of their low level of religious observance...Their dress habits are those of today's youth: brands, baseball caps, hoods, in other words streetwear...a beard is no longer a sign of devoutness...They never wear the usual Salafi garb - and this is not really to go unnoticed... as they never make a secret of their (re)conversion to Islam.
Their musical tastes are those of the times: they like rap music and go to clubs...[They] are also gaming enthusiasts and are fond of violent American movies such as Brian de Palma's Scarface....kung-fu training rooms and selfies with guns [tend to feature]....There is even a group of jihadi bikers and manga fans in Belgium, the 'Kamikaze Bikers'...some of its members were prosecuted for terrorism....The language spoken by radicals is always that of the country of residence - French, in this case. They often use youth slang and switch to a Salafized version of banlieu talk when they reconvert...Prison time puts them in contact with their radicalized peers....'
This description is important because their final suicidal actions also serve as an act of redemption for their previously wayward lifestyle. More significantly in connection with the proposal you have floated, in the afterlife, according to the eschatological beliefs of ISIS, their status as a shaheed or martyr confers on them the right to intercede with Allah on behalf of any relatives that subsequently pass on. Often ISIS recruits regard their own relations as possibly destined for Jahannam or hell as they are not following the pure path of salafi-jihadism. Given that ISIS is a doomsday cult, one that is preoccupied with the end times (the appearance of the Mahdi and the antichrist and what not), the fate of their own relatives in this world rather than the next one may not preoccupy them very much.
I should point out that I only swing by this forum once in a blue moon, usually just to check on what's going on with tinnitus research and only had a look at this section of the forum out of curiosity. So I won't be around to maintain a dialogue.
But if anyone is interested in delving into the murky and sometimes counter-intuitive world of Islamic terrorism, here are the names of a few reputable publications:
William McCants The ISIS Apocalypse
Graeme Wood The Way of the Strangers
Peter Neumann Radicalized : New Jihadists and the Threat to the West
Shiraz Maher Salafi Jihadism
Jason Burke, Patrick Cockburn and Abdel Bari Atwan are also pretty good.
Maher and Neumann's Twitter feeds are worth keeping tabs on, not just because they feature links to balanced, peer-reviewed research on jihadism but also because there is material on right-wing terror groups as well.
On the relationship of Islamic militancy to early Islam and the Qur'an, Asma Afsaruddin is probably the best author to look at. Here are links to a couple of her articles:
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/artic...e.com/2014/07/pretender-islamic-baghdadi.html
Finally, with regard to Iran, the late Michael Axworthy's books are seminal.
The good news is that - contrary to what unimprovably stupid commentators like Pam Geller would have people believe - the vast majority of Muslim residents in the USA are generally as aspirational and supportive of democracy as any other citizen pursuing the American Dream. In other words, they are generally impervious to the blandishments of the radicals.
So here's a reassuring (and quite amusing) video by the taqwacore (Islamic punk) band The Kominas to confirm that:
It went away by itself?
I have no problem with the behavior of most Muslims in America, they're good neighbors and citizens. However, there are psychotics who are not concerned with their own lives, who commit acts of terrorism. You can brush off the possibility that they would not care if their homicidal terrorism activities resulted in the death of their own families, as a response by the American military, but I think that most would.
