Terrorism

Ok so some shitty ass obscure tyranny pisses off some of it's citizens and we happen to buy oil from them so they decide to murder some of our civilians.

We retaliate and the terrorists say "THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US NOW".

We do nothing and the terrorists say "THEY ARE WEAK, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT!".

If you hate america and love terrorists, even by taking the terrorist's side it is obvious that there is nothing we can do to stop them attacking us. So we must retaliate. Therefore the war to defend Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians from terrorism was the correct course of action.

that about covers it

Problems:

1. There are more than two potential courses of action. Ignoring them and declaring that you must only take one of two actions you supply is fallacious.

2. You provide no criteria for what determines an action to be "correct". What goals must be met? What outcome must be achieved?

3. There is no connection between your postulate and your conclusion. You provide no evidence to support the notion that the two wars you cite have satisfied the as-yet indeterminate criteria for "correctness" from your postulate.

Frankly, this was one of the least coherent and logical arguments in support of these two wars I've ever seen.

Blame in on the Kikes. Sand coons hate the West because of Kikes. Kikes brought about civil right or waddeva; that shit that  gives everyone all these hippie rights which stop Western government from obliterating the Islamic faith o atleast baring Muslim Immigration

Its all the Kikes fault.

Kikes...that word reminds me of some old guy with a cane which he waves angrily at the paperboy for some reason. Anti semites should invent a new deragatory term, more modern with some contemporary association. Some suggestions:
Arab killers
Hate mongers
Wall builders
Racists
Gun nuts
Fascists
Apocalyptic death cultists
etc

Do you even know why they hate us?
Your probably one of those people who are like "THEY HAIT US FOR OUR FREEDOM"
okay dumbass, Canada is free, why don't they attack them? They have alot more homosexual atheists.
If you read about the Cold War, you can see why they hate us.
my idea...try to say sorry to them

>>5
How'bout "Zionists".

>>3
What abou the logic of the terrorists?

1: My point is we must retaliate at a certain intensity not give the countries where the terrorists came from billions of dollars as a sorry for whatever decades old diplomatic scuffle the terrorists are using as an excuse.

2: The usual run of the mill strategies which stop terrorism. Sun Tzu, logic, guerilla warfare and counter-insurgency.

3: We retaliated against the Taliban and Saddam. They were terrorists.

>>8
Saddam was not a terrorist and has no record on using terrorists to my knowledge. Since he was secular the militant jihadists was not to keen on him. And shouldn't the US then retaliate against pakistan and saudi arabia? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is pakistani while bin Laden is saudi. If the retaliation against iraq is meant  to work as a deterrent then maybe you should make clear what exactly provoked this retaliation (if you say human rights abuses then that begs the question why the US is not retaliating against Sudan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Russia etc). As it stands i dont think the message is especially clear, rather its like: "If you attack us then we will topple a weak dictator who had nothing to do with the attack and get entrenched in a perpetual civil war!".

>>7
kikes

>>10
 Hebes

>>9
Saddam was a terrorist.

>>11
jebes

>>If you hate america and love terrorists, even by taking the terrorist's side it is obvious that there is nothing we can do to stop them attacking us. So we must retaliate. Therefore the war to defend Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians from terrorism was the correct course of action.


there are other ways of fighting things than launching a ginormeous land force to the other side of the world. Just look at USAs latin america policy a decade or two or three ago.

>>14
Remove the Kikes, Niggers and Sand coons and you've removed 90% of the Western Worlds problems.

>>13
hebe jebes

>>14
Cuba is still communist.

After all this time you're still brainwashed into thinking that Bush was right... Don't you see what we've done in Iraq, we have not made it safer at all, we have turned it into a haven for terrorism and lawlessness.

>>8

Strawman. Nobody has proposed giving terrorists billions in reparations and even if someone with any say in the matter did, it certainly doesn't have any meaningful support and is therefore immaterial.

Your second statement is factually untrue. Terrorism always fails because it is unpopular and ultimately winds up losing the support of the people it supposedly represents, not because it can be defeated using standard military tactics. If you truly believe you have invented some new tactic where brilliant military strategists have failed for centuries, do contact the DoD immediately.

Individual battles can be won using military tactics, obviously, but history tells us that no manner of brute, short of indiscriminate mass murder, will defeat the amorphous enemy called "terrorism". And while simply carpet bombing terrorist hotspots around the globe with nuclear weapons would almost certainly work, at least until the rest of the surviving world united and wiped us off the map, it would just make us terrorists anyway, so we would logically have to do the same to ourselves.

Finally, Saddam was not a terrorist in the sense you're obviously trying to maintain, nor was the Taliban. Each was a maniacally repressive government (in fact, Hussein was a semi-legitimate leader as he took the presidency through succession after forcing the previous, ailing president to resign) that horribly abused their peoples and threatend external nations. That's tyranny as government policy, not terrorism as an ideological imperative.

Furthermore, you have still failed to define the criteria for "correctness" and you have still failed to acknowledge any other policy decisions that are available to defend the United States from terrorism.

>>1

Easy, simple, cheap answer:  every time sandniggers attack Americans, the nearest city with a majority-Moslem population gets turned into a puddle of radioactive glass.  Repeat as needed.  It will stop very quickly, either because the sandniggers will begin to grasp, in a thick-headed, fumbling, comical sort of way, that actions have consequences, or they all will have joined the dinosaurs as one of Mother Nature's little mistakes.  Either way, win-win.

>>20
Brilliant. Didn't know that they could learn apes write human that well. Do you type in quad speed because of the hands you have instead of feet?

>>19
No I said giving billions to the people the terrorists came from. If a terrorist attack in america ends poverty in your local area it will simply invite more terrorism. We must go in there, root out the terrorists and tell the locals we are giving them supplies because of the damagge we are doing attempting to root out terrorists.

>>19
Also you are the one setting up a strawman argument claiming that liberals want to reward terrorists for murder americans.

>>23
claiming that I think liberals want to reward terrorists for murder americans.*

fix'd

>>17

cuba was just one crappy island, look at chile, nicaragua, most other latin american countries too before and during the cold war.

>>22
And I pointed out that nobody has proposed any such thing. If you're going to press that claim you're going to have to cite some examples.

Furthermore, you can't "root out the terrorists". They'll just move to another location. Reference: Afghanistan. Al Queada dispersed all over the region after we invaded and now that things have gone into a backslide they're re-entering the country.

You can't shoot "terrorism" down, it's not an army, it's not a machine, it's not a person. No nation in history has successfully used non-genocidal military tactics to defeat terrorism aimed at its country.

Terrorism is an ideology that feeds on hate - real or manufactured, poverty, nationalism, religious fervor, and a host of other emotional and anti-social causes. You can't shoot hate, you can't shoot nationaism, you can't shoot poverty, so you can't shoot terrorism. You can shoot terrorists, but unless you can shoot them faster than they can be recruited - unlikely while you're shooting them since you're also shooting people's brothers, husbands, wives, uncles who believe they're fighting a worthy fight, a sentiment they're families often share - you can't win solely by that tactic.

>>24
Nothing even remotely close to that appears anywhere in posts 19 or 3. Maybe you're confusing my posts with someone elses?

>>26
Terrorism is not an ideology ffs! Its a tactic, its a variant of guerrilla war fare. When people disguised themselves as indians and threw tea into the boston harbor, that was an terrorist act in the eyes of the brittish crown (and nobody has ever EVER called their own actions terrorist).
One thing with terrorism is that it forces the recipient to up his control mechanism, turning his state into a police state. This has been the overt agenda for many terrorist groups, that through murder, kidnapping and blowing up stuff forcing the country to become fascist. This as seen as a good goal because the more brutal a state is the more recruits the terrorist org will get. Read moar.

>>27
That's a rather pedantic semantic argument. In common usage, especially in the West, at this time, terrorism most definitely refers to the combination of political ideology and military tactics. I'll give you that in a formal argument it would be an improper usage of the term, but this isn't a formal argument and it does adequately cover the people and tactics under discussion.

Furthermore, I made no commentary related to the last half of your response yet, so having neither supported nor denied the claims you make, I fail to see how you could know my stance on them such that you would feel the need to tell me I should "read moar".

>>28

27 is right. Anyone who claims that terrorism is an ideology is an idiot and should be mocked.

>>27

Although I wouldn't call the tea throwing terrorism, since a state of terror was hardly achieved. I think it was more of a conventional tactical operation, albeit on small scale.

A good example to illustrate the versatility of terrorism I think would be the use of snipers on the eastern front during World War II. A single sniper can inflict moderate casualties at best. But by remaining hidden for a long time and targetting only officers and NCOs Soviet and German snipers would considerably lower the morale of enemy units, often to the point of the latter living in constant fear.

>>30
The tea throwing was a bit silly. They could have sold it and given money to charity.

>>29
What a compelling argument.

>>32
Thank you for your endorsement, 32.

>>33
What a sarcasm-impaired cock.

>>34
It's called double irony, you id.. Oh wait I get it. Triple irony. Nice touch.

shut up and kill somebody. you can be philosophical after the works done.

>>36
Sounds like an Iron Maiden song.

Iron Maiden sucks.

Therefore, your post sucks.

>>37
I wouldn't know Iron Maiden from a rusty slut.

>>38
If you were from soviet russia you'd know rusty Maiden from an Iron slut!

>>39
wasn't that Margret Thatcher?