I have read it. I wrote it. You're seeing things that don't exist.
We're not doing it out of the blue, we're doing it as the only solution to terrorism. These people cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be convinced that they're wrong, they aren't afraid of dying, their purpose is to convert the world by force to their religion and nothing less is acceptable to them. If we stop bothering them, they won't stop. The only thing that will stop them is the death of every single extremist Muslim on the planet. Before doing that, I'd rather try something a little less drastic. Nothing less drastic than killing their families has been shown to work.
You posted that it was shown to work. Now you are backing away from that statement
You posted that it was shown to work. Now you are backing away from that statement
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.Are you denying that killing all the extremist Muslims will stop extremist Muslim violence? Are you suggesting that somehow, dead extremist Muslims can still perform violence? It seems rather self-evident to me.
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.Are you denying that killing all the extremist Muslims will stop extremist Muslim violence? Are you suggesting that somehow, dead extremist Muslims can still perform violence? It seems rather self-evident to me.
Deflection- Yeah a dead extremists is going to haunt me.
You posted it- denied it - now are walking away from it.
Claim it as your own or did you make a mistake in the original post?
No, you asked me to prove it, I proved it. Dead men commit no atrocities. Apparently you don't like the proof. That's your problem.
No, your problem. You made it, clear as glass, now backtracking like crazy.
Yes, the fact that what I said was true is clear as glass. If you deny it, all you have to do is prove that a dead terrorist can cause any further physical harm. Go ahead.
Play in the playground- Denial, Plain and simple- Deflection- I expected better, quite disappointed.
I don't care about your disappointment, I care about what you can actually demonstrate and the only thing you've demonstrated is your dishonesty.
Place ground troops where? In Paris?Should the West place troops on the ground to take out terrorists?
Yes- why
No – Why
If yes- what countries would they be deployed to?
With the recent attacks in Paris I see a number of people that want to go in and take them out.
You opinion on what the West should do.
Large scale deployments of troops will not work.
Look to Iraq and Afghanistan and lessons learned.
We're not doing it out of the blue, we're doing it as the only solution to terrorism. These people cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be convinced that they're wrong, they aren't afraid of dying, their purpose is to convert the world by force to their religion and nothing less is acceptable to them. If we stop bothering them, they won't stop. The only thing that will stop them is the death of every single extremist Muslim on the planet. Before doing that, I'd rather try something a little less drastic. Nothing less drastic than killing their families has been shown to work.
We were at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, which when the war started was governed by the Taliban. We are not at war with any terrorist organization at this time. We are occasionally using drones to kill random people and we are dropping bombs on selected targets in Syria. These two activities are not war. They are a confused foreign policy which will not commit itself to facing our enemies and only involve itself in symbolism. We would rather drone innocents to death than risk taking a prisoner and sending them to Gitmo because that would interfere with the administrations intention to release the terrorists there and close the base.
Place ground troops where? In Paris?
How does killing their entire family work?
If we're going to do it, we should either do it right (massive bombing followed by well-supported ground troops slaughtering the opposition by the tens of thousands), or not do it at all. Half ass measures rarely accomplish much.
If we're going to do it, we should either do it right (massive bombing followed by well-supported ground troops slaughtering the opposition by the tens of thousands), or not do it at all. Half ass measures rarely accomplish much.
It may not, it depends on the specific situation, but a terrorist who doesn't care about his own life may very well care about the lives of those closest to him. The threat that if he continues, that it won't just be his sacrifice, but everyone he knows and loves as well, may be enough to stop these animals. We just have to be willing to carry through on the threat to show we're serious.
Absolutely NOT. There will be terrorist on Earth until the end of time no matter what anybody does. Putting troops on the ground will accomplish getting people on both sides killed.
Do ground troops even help? It seems to destabilize regions and any terrorist infrastructure we destroy is recreated in another failed state. It's like whack-a-mole.
If we could just land troops and wipe out Islamic terrorists once and for all I'd be for it. It doesn't seem to work out that way though.
That was the point I thought I was making. Killing a terrorist no issues- the problem we have seen in Yemen is that collateral damage leads to recruitment.
Problem is the family travels with them. Review the drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan as an example. Causes more problems on average than problems solved
The US has spent a lot of money in Yemen which is going thru a civil war. Both sides trying to take power are in a long running conflict with AQ in Yemen.
Reason whey the West and the Sunni should provide training and weapons.
The underlying causes also need to be addressed. But that should not be a western problem. Leave it to Saudi, Qatar, UAE and such to pay for all training and weapons.
Trying to instil western values on a medevil society ain't gonna work.