Thread: Solution to Terrorism?

Appeasement might not be a bad thing.
Maybe the islamic countries do not want the alternative. Maybe they don't like what they see of non islamic cultures and society.
Yeah, oil, business and the attachment to power or the appearance of power.

Originally Posted by humphrey

Maybe the islamic countries do not want the alternative. Maybe they don't like what they see of non islamic cultures and society.

Certainly, Islam seems less tolerant of the West, than the West is of Islam.

Western people see Islam as 'quirky' whereas Muslims see all others as 'evil'.

How do you address that problem?

you don't, and you accept the difference

who gives a fuck what they think of us as evil ?

Originally Posted by risktohimself

Western people see Islam as 'quirky' whereas Muslims see all others as 'evil'.

Hmm, is that so? Sounds like a generalisation which doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm, is that so? Sounds like a generalisation which doesn't withstand scrutiny.

It is a generalisation, but one which, I believe, is accurate.

From what I hear people talking about, read in the newspapers and see on the TV, most people in my country view Islam as a religion that they need not fear or concern themselves with, as long as they are not going to be required to buy a prayer mat anytime soon.

It's a bit like the Gay Issue twenty years ago - "Gays? Providing they don't try to bum me, they can do what they like."

"Muslims, don't bother us and you can wail as long as you like." with a dismissive wave of the hand.

Live and let live.

My perception is, that Islam does not view the West in the same way.

Originally Posted by humphrey

both agree however that each other will go to hell. In this big world we have, one way may not be the best or only way for all the people all the time.

And hell is what each side experiences naturally enough.

The one way statement is the wisest phrase I've seen uttered here--but then I haven't been with the forum very long.

Originally Posted by Freddybear

While the solution to terrorism is not simple, the path is clear. Ending terrorism starts at the source. Islamists (this category takes in most Muslims,regardless of what they tell you) will have to be killed in sufficiently large numbers to cause the kind of fear that will make them quit killing "infidels". Sherman understood this simple concept when he invaded the rebellious south. Even the Muslims who agree with terrorism will not all be actively involved in it. Assassination of mullahs who preach hate and train wahabbi-minded young people is the logical place to start. The mainstreaming of Islam will require more killing than most people care to contemplate. Let it begin sooner rather than later. Conventional "wisdom" would have you believe that young Muslims will be "radicalized" by harsh treatment. In fact, the reverse is true. The jihadis who flew planes into the twin towers were mostly comfortable and well-off. The only thing Muslims will have to give up to stop the killing will be their supposed "right" to behave as serial killers. Terror will end terror. It's the only approach that hasn't been tried.

Hey Freddybear:

Sorry for the late reply, however it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

...it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

Didn't take you long to reveal your true colours...
Good job you're retired and not in charge of ordering a mass slaughter.

To end Terrorism is simple:::





EVERYONE KEEP YOUR FUGGIN HANDS TO YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

...it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

Didn't take you long to reveal your true colours...
Good job you're retired and not in charge of ordering a mass slaughter.

General Sherman was a great American. He has always been one of the best in American History, if not the best.

You Stroller, back into your cage!

Originally Posted by ceburat

General Sherman was a great American. He has always been one of the best in American History, if not the best.

You Stroller, back into your cage!

Maybe so, but that was in the 19th century. Acceptable conduct for warfare has changed since then, ever heard of the Geneva Convention?

Time to crawl out of your cave!

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

I wonder if the last words out the the beheaded CIVILIANS were " but you know this is against the Geneva convention rules don't you?"

I think we should adopt the secondary rules of TIT FOR TAT. when a country or organization breaks the Geneva convention rules then we resort to the TIT FOR TAT rules. you did it to us so that means we can do it to you !!!!

Don't know about the solution for the rest of the world, but for Thailand, the obvious solution is to give the southern insurgents what they want...their own country. Then they can begin to fight among each other and descend further into poverty and hyperinflation. There are many former Soviet satellites who wish they had never broken free of the USSR. The same will happen with any future Kingdom of Patanni. I am totally in favor of allowing that region to break off and discover just how bad things can get.

Originally Posted by KID

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

Originally Posted by KID

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

I think we should adopt the secondary rules of TIT FOR TAT. when a country or organization breaks the Geneva convention rules then we resort to the TIT FOR TAT rules. you did it to us so that means we can do it to you !!!!

I suggest you inform yourself about the Geneva Convention, it protects nations, soldiers and civilians. Maybe it's also time to remind of the circumstances it came about - WW2, Nuremberg trials ring a bell?
'Terrorism' does not reside in any one nation, and conducting the kind of warfare (total war) a number of right-wingers suggest, the US would be guilty of the very warcrimes the Nazis were hanged for.
Ironic, that the same people pride themselves of having 'liberated' Europe from the Nazis...these modern day fascists, specially when operating under the guise of some piety, rank equal to the fanatic Jihadists in my esteem: the lowest of the lowest.

Originally Posted by KID

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

I wonder if the last words out the the beheaded CIVILIANS were " but you know this is against the Geneva convention rules don't you?"

I think we should adopt the secondary rules of TIT FOR TAT. when a country or organization breaks the Geneva convention rules then we resort to the TIT FOR TAT rules. you did it to us so that means we can do it to you !!!!

Hi Kid, you beat me to it, right on.

Originally Posted by Jools

Don't know about the solution for the rest of the world, but for Thailand, the obvious solution is to give the southern insurgents what they want...their own country. Then they can begin to fight among each other and descend further into poverty and hyperinflation. There are many former Soviet satellites who wish they had never broken free of the USSR. The same will happen with any future Kingdom of Patanni. I am totally in favor of allowing that region to break off and discover just how bad things can get.

I tend to agree with you, however, 20 or so years from now, or sooner, Thailand would again have problems. Don't you know it's Thailands fault.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by ceburat

General Sherman was a great American. He has always been one of the best in American History, if not the best.

You Stroller, back into your cage!

Maybe so, but that was in the 19th century. Acceptable conduct for warfare has changed since then, ever heard of the Geneva Convention?

Time to crawl out of your cave!

Put it to a test Stroller. Would you follow the Geneva Convention Rules and loose a war, or, would you do what was necessary, including ignoring the Geneva Convention and win the war?

^ The Geneva convention is there for one purpose: avoid abuses. We all know how you compassionate Christians and other "moralisers" love abuses, and your like are exactly why we have the Geneva convention, to avoid you from getting a free ride into your stupid mistakes which usually involves murdering innocents in the name of silly causes.

I wouldn't invade any country for flimsy excuses to start with.

Which war do you want to win?
Iraq has surrender 3 years ago.
'War on terror'? - that's not a war which could be won by any military, it requires different approaches.

But to answer your question: I regard the value of the Geneva convention and humanity higher than the goal of winning a war.
Now my question: Would you follow your conscience as a true Christian(not a repented sinner) and lose a war, or ignore it and win?

Originally Posted by KID

Your So Full Of Shit Your Eyes Are Brown Stroller. If The u.s And The Rest Of The Coalition are Guilty Of War Crimes !!! What Are They???? Individuals May Have personally Committed Crimes, But Have They Not Been Taken To Trial For Those Crimes????

Thanks for your kind words.
I wasn't talking about the US and the coalition, I was talking about hate-fuelled warmongers like yourself.

Originally Posted by stroller

I wouldn't invade any country for flimsy excuses to start with.

Which war do you want to win?
Iraq has surrender 3 years ago.
'War on terror'? - that's not a war which could be won by any military, it requires different approaches.

But to answer your question: I regard the value of the Geneva convention and humanity higher than the goal of winning a war.
Now my question: Would you follow your conscience as a true Christian(not a repented sinner) and lose a war, or ignore it and win?

A real Christian would not fight in a war, a repented sinner might. Your answer to my question is the PC answer, not the truth

The "PC answer" is the truth.
I am not a Christian, but I do hold ethical values of a similar nature.

Therefore a repented sinner isn't a Christian and should never dare call on the word of God as any sort of defense for one's immoral behavior.

I love it.

Originally Posted by surasak

Therefore a repented sinner isn't a Christian and should never dare call on the word of God as any sort of defense for one's immoral behavior.

I love it.

What you say here makes no sense at all. You don't like religion, ok, that's your problem. However, make sense when you do discuss it.