The Only Way to Defeat Terrorists

a reply to: dragonridr

One problem - a fairly well-organized coalition has been set up...since around October 2001. That hasn't been working too well, has it?

a reply to: scorpio84

Why don't we just surrender. Say, "You win".

What can they do to everyone in the west?

(theoretical question, don't go flaming, please)

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: scorpio84

Thanks for the Fisking...

The themes of your posts creates the impression of an intelligent extremist hiding behind words.

You say 'deport Muslims' and slide past the logistics of how that's accomplished. You say 'close borders' and leave aside the implications of what a closed border looks like or how they are enforced. You argue for 'monitoring' and 'profiling' Muslims and neglect to define the processes these require.

Now, you're standing on the point that none of these actions and systems will demand 'forced relocation of citizens nor of conducting random raids.' How could they not be? How can your ideal be accomplished without security searches on properties?

To bring about your ideal, we'd be looking at something similar to wartime Germany, Cold War Berlin and 1990s Zimbabwe. You can sugar-coat it all with reasonable-sounding explanations, but underneath is the same old bitter pill of extremism.

With regards to deportations, that would be done with airplanes, I imagine. As for closed borders..go to the Lao/Thai border at around 5 a.m. and you will see what a "closed border" looks like.

If you can't see the difference between this situation and the examples you gave, I'm sorry, but I really can't help you.

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: eletheia

Fantastic spin there.

Have you considered how little your safety is worth, when you have no freedom to enjoy breathing with? If you believe you can enjoy security without freedom, why not go and live in China, or North Korea?

I know we put a huge value on our freedoms, but not having some of them isn't the end of the world. I was living in Thailand (Bangkok, specifically) during the latest coup. Right after the coup, there was military law with soldiers everywhere and curfews. It may seem horrible, but really it wasn't. Yes, some freedoms were curbed, but about the only thing I couldn't do that I may have liked to would be go outside past 10 p.m. (and even then, you could tell the military you were on the way home). Now, you may not like this loss of liberty but I'll make two points as pertains to Thailand:

1). It was a slight inconvenience, but I didn't feel like my life was somehow made worse

2). Violence stopped pretty much immediately

The loss of liberty is a natural occurrence when providing the safety of everyone.

I think it was John Adams who said and I paraphase "Those who would restrict liberty don't deserve it."

Your are spouting 'fasicist' party line.

Please source your 'quotes' otherwise it's plagarism "the rules, you want em strict"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: scorpio84

Why don't we just surrender. Say, "You win".

What can they do to everyone in the west?

(theoretical question, don't go flaming, please)

I know it's not possible in the anti-social media world, but if we didn't Advertize their exploits on a 24/7 basis maybe they would try a different tack.

As it is now we are rewarding 'terroristic' behavior with all the rigmarole. And thereby doing exactly what they want - spreading the terror beyond the actual attack.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It was actually Ben Franklin, and he was talking about legislature's right to tax a landowner and raise a militia at the same time.

The landowner said if the legislature didn't tax his property, he'd pay for the militia.

So it doesn't really fit in the way that he said it. The modern adaption works okay though I suppose.

Boom. History.

If we look at the hierarchy of the modern terrorism, we can find at least three interconnected levels (or layers).

1. There are head customers. Let's presume the customers are the elites of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey (you may add one or two). These elites suddenly became insanely rich and they want to implement their ambitions.
Why does the global community (represented by the United Nations) allow them to do what they do? For instance, where are the UN sanctions against the head customers? What about the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism?

2. There are groups (let's say the elites of some other countries) who gain their own benefits turning a blind eye to the actions of the customers and even helping them. The allies.
For example, I'm sure the U.S. government clearly sees all the financial transactions from the customers (such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia as we presumed) to the terrorist organizations (including the transactions through so-called Islamic charities). But the U.S. government does nothing against these transactions to get something in return (e.g., military bases in Qatar). Actually, they are allies. The cooperative enterprise. And always remember about the theory of the "controlled chaos" as a political technology (fishing in troubled waters), the U.S. foreign policy is a great example.

Needless to say, somebody must be buying crude oil and ancient artifacts from the Islamic State. Somebody must be providing unobstructed transit for the militants. And so on and so forth.

3. And there are the performers. There are different categories: pro mercenaries (driven by money), Wahhabis (driven by ideas), brainwashed people (driven by delusions), etc. And many of them were born and grew up in the countries devastated by the West. Although there are those who belong to the West ethnically and/or civically, but they fight against it (but there are people from all corners of the world).


So, we may talk about the refugees, the migrants, the Muslims, the state borders, etc. But the real problem is the absence of checks and balances system, when we've got customers who are allowed to behave like they do with the assistance of their allies who will always find the performers. There is no international legal system.
The world is ruled by force and money. Unless it changes, terrorism will be used as a tool at any time and at any scale.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: FyreByrd

It was actually Ben Franklin, and he was talking about legislature's right to tax a landowner and raise a militia at the same time.

The landowner said if the legislature didn't tax his property, he'd pay for the militia.

So it doesn't really fit in the way that he said it. The modern adaption works okay though I suppose.

Boom. History.

Thank you.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: FyreByrd

It was actually Ben Franklin, and he was talking about legislature's right to tax a landowner and raise a militia at the same time.

The landowner said if the legislature didn't tax his property, he'd pay for the militia.

So it doesn't really fit in the way that he said it. The modern adaption works okay though I suppose.

Boom. History.

Thank you - I didn't know the context of that quote.

a reply to: FyreByrd

No problem! The quote still fits, he just meant it in a different way.

He was still thumbing his nose at the English so I mean...still a win.

a reply to: scorpio84

Airplane rides for anywhere from five to 12 million people.

Sounds totally feasible. I'd rather my taxes didn't get any higher, so I'm sure since you're supportive of the idea you can foot my share of the bill.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: scorpio84

Why don't we just surrender. Say, "You win".

What can they do to everyone in the west?

(theoretical question, don't go flaming, please)

If you want an idea of what they not only could do but would do in the West, take a look at other places that have been under the rule of extremist Islam.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: scorpio84

The crucial thing is to ensure that ones response to terrorism does not create more terrorism. It is also vital to ensure that preventing terrorism does not mean damaging liberties, because that defeats the object of preventing the terrorism in the first place, and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

Therefore, it is less important to think immediately of what to do, but more importantly what we may NOT do, on pain of death, even if it means allowing risk into our lives, to solve this situation.

We may not erode civil liberties.
We may not bomb and bomb and bomb to solve a problem which has only been made worse by bombing.
We may not prohibit worship of any religion.
We may not allow unofficial militias to spring up in hatred to lash out in ignorance against innocent people in retaliation for the crimes of terrorists.
We may not allow our governments to guide us, but be the hand that steers them toward resolution.

All things which fall in violation of these basic rules are invalid, and will make the situation worse, not better or make saving the world moot.

I would rather be dead than live in a fascism for any reason, rather suffer the consequences of too little security and too much liberty, than ever loose what little liberty remains to me. Others are welcome to their opinion, but they are not welcome to inflict its consequences on me and mine. Freedom, or death. There is no third way.

I like it. Can I steal it?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: scorpio84

Airplane rides for anywhere from five to 12 million people.

Sounds totally feasible. I'd rather my taxes didn't get any higher, so I'm sure since you're supportive of the idea you can foot my share of the bill.

You don't get how things work, do you? 5-12 million people? Are the 5-12 million Muslim non-citizens in any one country right now? No. Off the bat, you skew your numbers.

Let's use the United States for an example of what could be done. First off, the USA has a grand total of approximately 7,000,000 people who call themselves Muslim. Now, if you paid attention to anything I've written on this or another thread, you'd know that I do not advocating deporting all Muslims as you seem to wish to skew my words. Most of those 7,000,000 are citizens - however, under my plan, some may have the inconvenience of being profiled and observed (no, not a stakeout, but more things like checking phone records and bank statements). Disagree with it all you want, but something has to be done.

Now, the very first step to take is to close the borders to Muslims. In other words, do not allow Muslims to board any transportation headed for the United States of America. Refugees? Not our problem.

Deportation would be gradual - and since this is down to an issue of taxes for you, let's think about what it might cost to deport a bunch of people. I'll use simple numbers - and yes, it's hypothetical. Let's assume that there are 1,000,000 Muslims in the US who are not citizens. If we put the price of a one-way ticket to the Middle East at 1,000 dollars per person, we get a price tag of 1 billion to deport them all. Sounds expensive doesn't it? Well, now consider that the working population is about 250,000,000 and you get a price tag of less than 5 dollars per person.
Now, you may point to the fact that there is unemployment in America currently - 5.5%. Even with unemployment, you get an extremely small amount that the workforce would have to pay for - literally pennies would be taken out of one's weekly salary. You'd rather just let them in. You don't think your tax money will be going towards helping them get settled, their health care, and whatever other benefits migrants receive in our overly tolerant Western nations?

I like my money just as much as they next person who works hard for theirs. I don't, however, mind forking over a few bucks in a year for the greater good. But, you know what- since the cost to the individual of deporting Muslims who aren't citizens would be so low - I'll go ahead and pay your share. I'm sure I could find the requisite extra change lying around the ground when I walk outside.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: eletheia

Fantastic spin there.

Have you considered how little your safety is worth, when you have no freedom to enjoy breathing with? If you believe you can enjoy security without freedom, why not go and live in China, or North Korea?

I know we put a huge value on our freedoms, but not having some of them isn't the end of the world. I was living in Thailand (Bangkok, specifically) during the latest coup. Right after the coup, there was military law with soldiers everywhere and curfews. It may seem horrible, but really it wasn't. Yes, some freedoms were curbed, but about the only thing I couldn't do that I may have liked to would be go outside past 10 p.m. (and even then, you could tell the military you were on the way home). Now, you may not like this loss of liberty but I'll make two points as pertains to Thailand:

1). It was a slight inconvenience, but I didn't feel like my life was somehow made worse

2). Violence stopped pretty much immediately

The loss of liberty is a natural occurrence when providing the safety of everyone.

I think it was John Adams who said and I paraphase "Those who would restrict liberty don't deserve it."

Your are spouting 'fasicist' party line.

Please source your 'quotes' otherwise it's plagarism "the rules, you want em strict"

Where did I quote something without sourcing it?

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: scorpio84

Why don't we just surrender. Say, "You win".

What can they do to everyone in the west?

(theoretical question, don't go flaming, please)

If you want an idea of what they not only could do but would do in the West, take a look at other places that have been under the rule of extremist Islam.

So they kill us if they win and we surrender.
They kill us if we fight them and don't surrender.

We don't have the political will to destroy them.

Looks like the politicians and ISIS want us all dead, enslaved, or converted to their way of thinking.

a reply to: scorpio84

Except...it's not for the greater good.

It's for YOUR good, because you're such a coward you can't walk by a woman in a hijab without your pulse quickening and your knees getting a little weak.

And because of YOUR fear, you wish to "inconvenience" several million people.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: scorpio84

Except...it's not for the greater good.

It's for YOUR good, because you're such a coward you can't walk by a woman in a hijab without your pulse quickening and your knees getting a little weak.

And because of YOUR fear, you wish to "inconvenience" several million people.

I'm not sure where you get that I am a coward for wanting to protect Western culture from this obvious attack. Perhaps the question should be why don't you want to do something? The only "cowards" are those who refuse to act. Give me a better solution for dealing with the terrorists who are trying to change our way of life and I'll be happy to debate you. However, I'm done with the name-calling debate. If you can't handle replying without ad hominem attacks or making assumptions that I've never said, kindly remove yourself from this conversation.

Yes, as a non-Muslim, it is for my good that Islam does not replace Western culture. Would it happen tomorrow? Of course not - in fact, I'm not sure it could even happen by the end of my lifetime. However, I'm not willing to let my daughter or grandchildren live in a world in which Islam dominates.

Could I be wrong about the risk? Of course. However, just because something may not happen doesn't mean you don't do what is necessary to make sure that problem never does. You clearly don't see Islam as a threat to Western society - so maybe we'll just civilly agree to disagree.

a reply to: scorpio84

I get it because you're so terrified of Muslims that you're completely and perfectly willing to "inconvenience a few people" (I do so love the repeated attempts to mitigate this all down into only affecting a couple of folks, and only a little bit) so you feel safer. Nothing you've said is required "to protect western culture" (aka make you feel better) but it's the only way YOU can see.

You're so terrified you've repeatedly said you're willing to put yourself under the same level sof surveillance, as long as it's to keep yourself and western culture safe.

That's absurd. Pathetic, absurd, and cowardly.

Like I said in the other thread, it's pretty clear you're the kind of person who will keep going and going just to have the last word so you can claim victory in your own little world. I'll do that for you.

But don't forget to check your closet before you leave today. Might find a Muslim just itching to take you out!