The suicide bombers always win.

[White-hole]

What is with people today? Why do they go out of their way so much to make sure what ever they say or do does not offend islamic fundementalistists? This basicaly a repeat of forties when the english and french did nothing while an extremly insane nut(hitler) went around and did whatever the hell he wanted and they had many opportinites to get rid of him. We are repeating history by letting these nuts bully us and get to a point where an atempt to sort them out would be much more costly to do now than it would have earilier. We are almost suppoting there actions now that we are so scared of them, I shall use the danish cartoon crisis as an example, i find it odd that you can make fun of judism,christianity and buddism without being denouced to the extant by people who worship those religons.
Please respond.

[JakeHero]

It's always sagacious to try and not to piss off an obviously insane enemy(Islamofascists). I am not saying we completely kowtow to them, but inciting them into a deeper rage is not a good idea either.

As for you saying we're letting them bully: no, the US is not allowing them to do anything. Infact, I dare say the US is the only country who takes this thread seriously. Other nations may have contributed to the war effort, but not by much. They will regret that in the future.

[White-hole]

At 7/1/06 05:48 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

As for you saying we're letting them bully: no, the US is not allowing them to do anything. Infact, I dare say the US is the only country who takes this thread seriously. Other nations may have contributed to the war effort, but not by much. They will regret that in the future.

Hmm, good point. I was thinking more about europe when I made this thread.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 05:53 PM, White_hole wrote: Hmm, good point. I was thinking more about europe when I made this thread.

Europe's full of pussies. That is to be expected.

[White-hole]

At 7/1/06 05:57 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

Europe's full of pussies. That is to be expected.

Im from Ireland.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 06:01 PM, White_hole wrote:

At 7/1/06 05:57 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

Europe's full of pussies. That is to be expected.

Im from Ireland.

Sorry. With the exception of the UK. I forgot how much England has helped us out.

[White-hole]

At 7/1/06 06:06 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

At 7/1/06 06:01 PM, White_hole wrote:

At 7/1/06 05:57 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

Europe's full of pussies. That is to be expected.

Im from Ireland.

Sorry. With the exception of the UK. I forgot how much England has helped us out.

Well we arent part of the U.K anymore, only the north is, and a lot of people hate the U.K here.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 06:10 PM, White_hole wrote: Well we arent part of the U.K anymore, only the north is, and a lot of people hate the U.K here.

You know what I mean.

[Arauthator]

Not to worry....ever thought about how a terrorist trains his people.

*Wraps bomb around waist*
"Listen Up people, I am only going to go through this once."

*BOOOM"

[lapis]

So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists? And just as a sidenote, the US-led invasion Iraq only made recruitment easier for Muslim radicals. Sending more troops won't do a thing to stop it.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 06:15 PM, lapis wrote: So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB?

They should grow some balls and help more besides just sending some of their reservesmen. That's a good start.

[Arauthator]

At 7/1/06 06:15 PM, lapis wrote: So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists? And just as a sidenote, the US-led invasion Iraq only made recruitment easier for Muslim radicals. Sending more troops won't do a thing to stop it.

Many others believe this too. However, it does keep the battleground over and away from me and that is all I really care about. I would hate to trip over a dead terrorist on my way to work tomorrow.

[lapis]

At 7/1/06 06:20 PM, JadedSoB wrote: They should grow some balls and help more besides just sending some of their reservesmen. That's a good start.

Like I said, sending more troops to Iraq isn't going to help the fight against Muslim extremists. These problems go a lot deeper. Heh, I don't know if I'm just feeding the troll right now by replying or not. But go ahead, explain why sending more soldiers would curb extremism and help prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings.

[White-hole]

At 7/1/06 06:22 PM, Arauthator wrote:

Many others believe this too. However, it does keep the battleground over and away from me and that is all I really care about. I would hate to trip over a dead terrorist on my way to work tomorrow.

the way we are Trying to keep it away from us by pleasing them might instead bring it to us like it did during WW2.

[RedScorpion]

Not all countries have the amount of soldiers, nor the amount of money that the US does. Having well over 1.5 million soldiers, a budget of 518 billion dollars... that's quite alot to try to compare to, when you consider the size and power of the various individual NATO countries.

Considering that 9/11 only directly affected the US - everybody immediately jumped in to offer help and aid, and a massive invasion of Afghanistan was made by NATO to liberate the people from the Taliban. You could even consider, that without the allied troops stationed throughout Afghanistan, the War in Iraq would not have been possible. More US troops would have to be stationed and kept in Afghanistan, and war-weariness would have been accumulated much faster.

Seems like there's never any news (or at least on this forum) about the contributions and events that happen in Afghanistan, despite alot happening over there.

It seems ironic to praise the US as being stronger and better than everyone else, but expect them to be just as capable.

If you're interested in Afghanistan and the events going on over there, check out their main website.
http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm

Magazine - PDF form

[Arauthator]

There isn't a way without mass destruction to curb, or stop evil doers. Otherwise we would have no need for the worlds armies. We just do what we are now to keep the blaze in a controlled area as much as possible.

On the WW2 thing. We ignored the war until Pearl Harbor. We also ignored it not fully understanding what was happening to Jews in Germany. The Troops were shocked to see just how bad the concentration camps really were.

Back to 9/11.
Again, we ignored an already monumental evil doer.

I say we warn the whole Middle East we are going to set it on fire, give them 60 days to catch a boat, or make one, and drop hundreds of Nuclear Bombs on it. Kinda like using Raid on a bunch of Wasp Nests. Let them go back after a few years and rebuild. Wait another thousand years or so for them to get up to par, and do it all over again.

I myself might even go over there and get into the glass making business after all that.

[White-hole]

What Im trying to say is that if we acted quicker and didnt tolerate fudelmentalist groups as much as we do then we wouldnt have problems such as Iran and Al Queida getting nukes.

[SakeSam]

"At 7/1/06 06:12 PM, Arauthator wrote:

Not to worry....ever thought about how a terrorist trains his people.

*Wraps bomb around waist*
"Listen Up people, I am only going to go through this once."

*BOOOM""

LOL......Yes let's not forget who trained them and why we did

[Cahenn]

At 7/1/06 06:15 PM, lapis wrote: So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists?

Currently? Obviously Iran.

not that I fully support that just like that, but it answers your question

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 06:25 PM, lapis wrote: . But go ahead, explain why sending more soldiers would curb extremism and help prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings.

Gladly. With more support from the world the US would not be the sole defender of Iraq in its current. State would be alot easier to hold off insurgents until Iraq stabilizes.

When Iraq does become a successful democratic government it will be a huge blow to international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. If you ever look on a world map you can see Iraq is in the center of Syria, Iran and the Jordan: three major terrorist contributors. With Iraq on the UN's side it will significantly cut these terrorist nations, specifically terror cells, off from another. It will be much more difficult for them to convey supplies and manpower between eachother with Iraq no longer cooperative.

Iraq is not only rich resource wise, but a great strategic location. The terrorists will have to completely circumvent it in order to keep operation alive in the south-western portion of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Effectively halting major support.

This is the reason I thought up on the top of my head. If you want more I'll give you more.

[Neoptolemus]

At 7/1/06 06:41 PM, Arauthator wrote: There isn't a way without mass destruction to curb, or stop evil doers.

Why is it that that seems so niave? You shouldn'#t really class people as "evil doers" even if it appears so, it's all based upon perspective..

At 7/1/06 07:01 PM, SakeSam wrote: "At 7/1/06 06:12 PM, Arauthator wrote:

LOL......Yes let's not forget who trained them and why we did

Exactly... The saying "what goes around comes around" springs to my mind. When the USA actively tried to stop communism in Afghanistan by training them in warfare (including how to make bombs out of simple "ingredients") and didn't care too much about what will happen in the future there's bound to be some seriously messed up things to come from it... I.e. the Taliban...

[Dzex]

As much as you'd like to believe it, how many of you really think Islamic fundementalism will ever come to an end?

It's more likely that the world will come to an end.

Maybe we should all just convert to Islam? :)

[Neoptolemus]

At 7/1/06 07:35 PM, Dzex wrote: As much as you'd like to believe it, how many of you really think Islamic fundementalism will ever come to an end?

It's more likely that the world will come to an end.

Maybe we should all just convert to Islam? :)

The thing is, it's not like its all muslims have these fundamentalist ideals, what it is is a select few.
What i don't understand is how all people actively condemn Islam for the act of the minority, especially Christians yet christianity hasn't been condemned by the west for the crusades... To be honest, it is hipocritical.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/06 07:38 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 7/1/06 07:35 PM, Dzex wrote: As much as you'd like to believe it, how many of you really think Islamic fundementalism will ever come to an end?

It's more likely that the world will come to an end.

Maybe we should all just convert to Islam? :)

The thing is, it's not like its all muslims have these fundamentalist ideals, what it is is a select few.
What i don't understand is how all people actively condemn Islam for the act of the minority, especially Christians yet christianity hasn't been condemned by the west for the crusades... To be honest, it is hipocritical.

What's so "hypocritial," if christians were condemning terrorism, but actively encouraging it for their followers that would be hypocrisy. You used the word incorreectly.

Tthe crusades were done hundreds of years ago. Christianity has boiled down and I doubt you hear about many international Christian terrorist groups. What I dont get is when somebody does condemn islamofascism the liberals use christians as a scapegoat and go "WELL THEY DID IT TOO!" You would think liberals and islamofascists are in league for how apologetic liberals are for them.

Besides, does one bad act negate another? Just because one group did something in the past does it not mean they can express their disgust in the future when a group does something horrible. Your logic is incredibly flawed.

[lapis]

At 7/1/06 07:07 PM, Cahenn wrote:

At 7/1/06 06:15 PM, lapis wrote: So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists?

Currently? Obviously Iran.

not that I fully support that just like that, but it answers your question

Heh, if we're lucky it might take down the current conservative government in Iran, but will it stop global extremism as a whole? First of all, it's arguable whether or not Iran can be successfully held under control by an invasion force. Iran is larger than Iraq and the general majority of it's population would take up arms in case of an invasion, while there was Kurdish and to some extent Shi'ite support in Iraq. Second of all, fundamentalists in Europe will only see an invasion as proof of the Western world wanting to bring down the Muslim world, resulting in more teenagers turning to radical Islam and will therefore only worsen the problems we have with Muslim radicals in Europe. The result would be an increasing probability of terrorist attacks in Europe, not what I call something to stop international problems with Muslim extremists.

At 7/1/06 07:18 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Gladly. With more support from the world the US would not be the sole defender of Iraq in its current. State would be alot easier to hold off insurgents until Iraq stabilizes.

Your post assumes that Iraq will eventually stabilise. With dozens of civilians dying in Iraq daily this is debatable, since even an increased number of troops in the country would not necessarily be able to stop insurgents from carrying out attacks against rival factions. Blowing up a Shi'ite mosque caused the rivalries to escalate in the past and such an event might happen again any day, and if the Sunnis and Shi'ites turn on each other there's little the Coalition forces can do but watch how the country plunges into chaos.

When Iraq does become a successful democratic government it will be a huge blow to international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. If you ever look on a world map you can see Iraq is in the center of Syria, Iran and the Jordan: three major terrorist contributors.

Back this up. I need evidence suggesting that these three countries really do actively contribute to international terrorism. Iran for example has no interest in helping the Sunni insurgency and the Shi'ites are as of yet laying low. Syria has been accused of being the place where Saddam hid his weapons of mass destruction before the invasion but apart from these accusations they are hardly a big international player, not even when it comes to terrorism. Bombings have been carried in Jordan for which the responsibility has been claimed by al-Qaeda, not much of a terrorism-supporting country it would seem.

Iraq is not only rich resource wise, but a great strategic location. The terrorists will have to completely circumvent it in order to keep operation alive in the south-western portion of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Effectively halting major support.

Coalition forces can never keep the entire country on a complete lockdown, professional terrorists will always find a way to slip through provided that they're not carrying large amounts of weapons with them. But on the other side, the terrorism-related problems we face in Western countries today are caused by Muslim immigrants or sympathisers who live here, who have been born here, who are angry with the way the Western world is handling prblems in the Middle East. Invading other countries, or even putting more pressure on Iraq, would make it easier for radicals in the West to recruit potential suicide bombers in the West itself.

Rather than fighting terrorism abroad, the West could better focus on homeland security and keeping terrorists out of our countries. The Iraqi terrorists do not have the means to strike any other target than civilians in their own country, as long as we keep it that way we're better off by not intervening. So we should only send some money to keep Iraq to some extent stabile while we invest in infiltrating terrorist organisations at home and let the Iraqis build their own police and defense system. Sounds like a better deal to me. It's too uncertain to conclude that the resources that we'd spend in Iraq could not be put to better use at home, so I'll go with the latter.

You destroy terrorism by taking away the reasons for youths to turn to it, sending more troops to Iraq is not that much of a solution in my opinion.

[Cahenn]

At 7/1/06 07:59 PM, lapis wrote: Heh, if we're lucky it might take down the current conservative government in Iran, but will it stop global extremism as a whole? First of all, it's arguable whether or not Iran can be successfully held under control by an invasion force.

Oh but you said bomb, not invade ;) We can nuke and forget, nuke and forget...

[lapis]

At 7/1/06 08:08 PM, Cahenn wrote:

At 7/1/06 07:59 PM, lapis wrote: Heh, if we're lucky it might take down the current conservative government in Iran, but will it stop global extremism as a whole? First of all, it's arguable whether or not Iran can be successfully held under control by an invasion force.

Oh but you said bomb, not invade ;) We can nuke and forget, nuke and forget...

Haha, good point. The nuclear fallout will hurt our farms but that's a minor inconvenience.

[Cahenn]

At 7/1/06 08:10 PM, lapis wrote: Haha, good point. The nuclear fallout will hurt our farms but that's a minor inconvenience.

Well, because muslims are obviously all such slime (EVERY SINGLE ONE!) the pollutions will stay about the same, minus muslim stench plus nuclear fallout kind of balance eachother.

We can also nuke the fallout, that stupid fallout is polluting our water and endangering innocent civilians, we must take action against the terrorist fallout fundamentalists, Nukes are the only logical way.

[lapis]

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this is why I'm such a strong proponent of Iran getting nukes. Think about it, they're probably already aware of their own slimyness, and if they get nukes we could all nuke Iran together. It'll be one big international celebration in which every country, including Iran in the near future, launches it's complete nuclear arsenal at Iran and everyone wins in the end. It's genious I tell you.

[SilentHavoc13]

Let's not forget the large amount of allies that would be lost from such tactics.