Swordfish

Swordfish

I re rented this movie last night and I must say it opened my eyes to a brilliant yet terrifying solution to combat terrorism.

I wont go through the whole plot of the movie but the general plot is this.

There are a group off American ex military ex cia (we never really find out) who want to rob a bank and need a hacker to collect money from old accounts that were started buy the D.E.A 30 or so years ago and had been earning interest since .

So the plan was to brake into the bank and hack in and steal the money.

The reason this group of people needed the money (9 billion) was to fund a counter terrorist program. The idea was that for every terrorist act agenst the u.s.a this group would react with a larger more terrifying act against countries that Harbord terrorists.

For example if the terrorists bombed a church The Americans would take out a airfield,
If they executed a American citizen the Americans would tactically nuke a city.

There goal was to make terrorism so horrifying that country’s would never harbour terrorists.

The question is Do you this this is a good idea , Now I know its not a morally good idea but do you think it would be effective?

Sure, it might be a good idea.But it seems to be working the other way around.The CIA was started to protect the US economy.To protect the federal reserves interests.And it seems these days the CIA are doing the terrorist acts to create wars to fix an ever failing economy due to the corrupt system its based upon.Wouldn't seem the CIA do any counter terrorism only terrorism.

Good idea for a movie? Sure, I guess.

Good idea for real life? No.

Ignorant people think the only way to stop terrorism is to kill others. The problem is that people who think this way don't stop to see what's causing terrorism in the first place.

You bomb a country's airport and you expect them to start planting flowers and accepting that act as a goodwill?

reply to post by DJMessiah


When dealing with a group who only understands one thing ie: violence, the mafia way of doing things is the best approach. Hit them so hard they never think of hitting you again.

Politically correct? No.

Internationally acceptable? No.

Effective? Hell yes.

incidentally, I think the current "War on Terra" is a joke that is meant to keep us in fear thereby giving government more power to take away our liberties.

That being said, both in personal life, as well as in national life, the " annihilate them hard enough that their ancestors feel it" approach does in fact work.

That comes from personal experience

I agree that this is a good approach in theory, perhaps when you're dealing with a sovereign nation, but against a rogue group, no matter how large, who aren't at all afraid of death, it will not work. When you send people into public areas strapped with a belt full of bombs, to martyr themselves, tactics like these simply won't work because they welcome death. It's an honorable thing for them to die for the "cause".

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was a massive, head-for-an-eye retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Japan was also a sovereign nation. Not wanting to see any more of their innocent citizens die, they submitted.

Now, terrorist groups do not have "innocent citizens", they are not concerned with collateral damage. We could wipe out an entire terror harboring nation, it would not matter, only embolden them. If we took out an entire terrorist group, there would only be more in line behind them.

It's a nice thought, but tell me how this could possibly work?

reply to post by slackerwire


Thanks for proving my point. Violence only begets more violence. What you described is committing genocide. You expect us to kill off entire populations so that there is no potential for future terrorists through future generations.

Ever wonder what's causing terrorism? I'll give you a hint, it's the same type of mentality that you think is the solution to stopping it.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by DJMessiah]