Look if you want to show the terrorists who is boss. Just snort a line off a hookers ass and praise muther effin' Allah. That will drive them absolutely crazy.
Terrorists:1 UK:0
- Thread starter Tenchiro
- Start date
i say, people around the world must get their **** together and be frank upon each other.
"if you bomb us, we´ll bomb you back times 10 in a similar way". nothing short of that would work.
at least it kept the ruskies and the ´merkuns from leveling the earth.
"if you bomb us, we´ll bomb you back times 10 in a similar way". nothing short of that would work.
at least it kept the ruskies and the ´merkuns from leveling the earth.
Damn, do you think he saw my post?!? :hot:blue said:
terrorists are not countriesALEXIS_DH said:
No, but we could go Kaiser Sose on their azzes. We could go after their spouses, children, parents, neighbors, coworkers, etc. The list is pretty much endless.Transcend said:terrorists are not countries
who said anything about countries?? "terrorists are from xxx town, in yyy country?.. then we´ll bomb xxx town, in yyy country". or maybe cuban style blockades or something drastic.Transcend said:terrorists are not countries
call it collective punishment. but it "needs" to be back.
actually, not exactly collective punishment itself, but the credible threat of it. call it a bluff if you want, but a truly convincing one.
the threats of "we´ll track them down and kill thousands of our own in the process, while eroding our political support back home" is kinda laughable actually when compared to suicide terrorism.
its definately not enough to keep anybody from killing himself.
Right so you destroy a town full of innocent children and families because 4 guys decided to bomb an airliner. Smart.
That would MAKE me bomb your stuff out of spite, not make me resist bombing you.
That would MAKE me bomb your stuff out of spite, not make me resist bombing you.
its not strictly necessary to do it.Transcend said:
just make it a widely known and credible threat of retaliation before the airliner gets bombed.
if the threat of violence is big and credible enough, then it can prevent the initial airliner bombing from happening.
assuming the initial threat wasnt big and credible enough, so that the bombing of an airliner happened. then you go up one level in the strategy tree.
you can, for example, do a feat of strength to show you mean business (with little dead people, if any), to show next time the real deal is coming.
or you can deliver the promised goods plus interest big enough that the fear of you hitting again is bigger than the spite.
I know of plenty of cocaine that's come out of Peru...time to throw all the Peruvians in prison.
hmm..blue said:I know of plenty of cocaine that's come out of Peru...time to throw all the Peruvians in prison.
on one hand, cocaine doesnt travel unrequested you know?. if you dont like it, dont buy it, the US is a free country after all.
terrorism does come unrequested.
drugs are quite different than acts of war.
Collective punishment. Didn't someone try that a while back? Now who was it....oh that's right...THE F*CKING NAZIS.
you know what the argumentative value of resorting to the nazis is.valve bouncer said:Collective punishment. Didn't someone try that a while back? Now who was it....oh that's right...THE F*CKING NAZIS.
plus, am talking about the THREAT of collective punishment. if the threat is big and credible enough (just like the threat of terrorist action is credible enough to make the brits go crazy), then it can prevent BOTH sides from making the first step.
i dont know if that is clear enough. that a threat of collective punishment DOES NOT equate to collective punishment necesarily.
if a THREAT of massive collective punishment prevents both sides from making the first step (so that no initial airliner bombing occurs), doesnt that justify the use of the threat??????
How Machiavellian.ALEXIS_DH said:
whatever the fitting adjectives.Old Man G Funk said:
if a credible threat of massive ownage (at this point a threat only) stops genocide from happening in the first place, and the overall number of people ends up being much lower, likely zero since no one made the first step, than if an initial airliner bombing happened.
if the threat is big and credible enough, then it can actually end up avoiding violence.
would not it be moral?
or ownage (as it would ensue if the other side made the first step, and then you went by the usual response) itself is more moral than a credible threat of massive ownage (and posibly no one throwing the first stone)?
now if that fails, its not 100% necessary for massive relatiation to happen. a token ownage (hopefully infraestructure and no dead people) showing you are serious. or other meassures if you are about to play repeated games.
Are you sure of that?ALEXIS_DH said:
Do you think that terrorism will stop if we threaten to nuke the whole entire Middle East?
Don't give him any ideas.Old Man G Funk said:
Collective punishment is totalitarian even if it is just a "threat". I realise you're in training to join the oligarchy over there Alexis but there are limits.
Old Man G Funk said:
that´d mean the terrorist are not only willing to die, but to kill their own too. that alone is more morally troublesome, but lets leave it at that.
on threats being effective. they kept the US and the USSR from nuking each other for decades, they kept israel from being razed from 73 and on... they arent really ineffective.
in those scenarios, as validated by current british/american paranoia perseption is reality.
finally, if the threat failed to be a deterrent.
you wouldnt be much worse off than if you didnt made any threat, since the attack would have happened anyways.
seems to me the dominant strategy, besides the moral issues of a mere threat/chest thumping.
(after all, havent we heard (and worse, seen materialized) many many threats of collective punishment against europe, US and israel). not talking about the actual attacks, but the almost monthly threats, nobody seems to think are as troublesome as hundreds/thousands actually dying.
lets assume a threat has a non-trivial chance of sucess.
you are rating a threat as worse than the chance of keeping an attack from happening, and hundreds? thousands? of people dying.
At what cost to your humanity?ALEXIS_DH said:
If you threaten to destroy countless civilians over a terrorist exploding a plane, how is one to tell you apart from the terrorist?
What would reduce the amount of terrorism in the US is not letting any non-white people into the country. If you're not 100% white, you don't get in. That will SURELY reduce the amount the terrorism since white people don't blow themselves up as much as 'terrorists'...right?!ALEXIS_DH said:
edit. How about we look at the root causes of WHY the US or any other country is targeted and then find a measure to address that.
ChrisRobin said:What would reduce the amount of terrorism in the US is not letting any non-white people into the country. If you're not 100% white, you don't get in. That will SURELY reduce the amount the terrorism since white people don't blow themselves up as much as 'terrorists'...right?!
edit. How about we look at the root causes of WHY the US or any other country is targeted and then find a measure to address that.
Are you really that retarded?
I'm just going along with the theme.N8 said:
ChrisRobin said:
gottcha!
Simple. We're the white ones. White people can't be terrorists. Excepts for the godless Russian communists, that is.Old Man G Funk said:
And the IRA.Silver said:
And the Oklahoma City Bomber.
And the kid from suburbia who flew over to Afghanistan to fight in the jihad against the US.
And the Unabomber!
And the shoebomber!
And the shoebomber!
"GODLESSNESS! MUSLIMS!"
American patriots who were exercising their second amendment rights in a slightly misguided way...stevew said:
No need to bust out the "t" word there.
why do you need to feel you have a moral altitude??Old Man G Funk said:
you dont have it. simply put, its a war.
whatever you do, you are going to kill people anyways, just you have rationalized those deaths as "moral" already.
but people isnt less dead because of that. and i believe is more moral to minimize the number of dead people (of avoid any death), than to fulfill one´s morality ideals at the cost of many people dead.
on the other hand, a threat, can actually avoid those deaths (rationalized as "moral") from happening in the first place.
if hezbollah had been hinted at the kind of response they, and lebanon, are facing now... would they had still kidnapped 2 soldiers?
they have stated they didnt expect a response of this kind.
i believe olmert made a mistake, he didnt hint he would go ape crazy in case of attacks, and likely, hezbollah didnt think he would.
had he made the threat in advance, we might not be having the war of today.
what israel is doing now, IMO, is rationally giving the impression of irrationality, in order to show its willing to return brutal force in the future and gain leverage against future attacks.
if by means you mean "no death people and a threat, that hurts your self-image of the good guys" and by end you mean "many dead people, but no threat so you can feel you are still the "good guys", then yes.Changleen said:
even if you were right, and threatening retaliation was "criminal". (although i´ve seen a lot of maximum ownage threats at gvmt level in the last few years)Changleen said:
would people rather be
a) threatened to death, if a portion of its society attacks. although its likely no single death would happen if the threat is convincing enough.
b) actually dead, when the west launches a "war on terrorism" fulfulling its own "we are the good guys" morality, at the expense of thousands of people in both sides...
threats are effective, thats reality.
a threat is what keeps the US and israel from pounding iran. is what keeps NK from getting pounded by the US. it what kept the indians and the pakistanians from nuking each other out of existance.
could not it be possible that apparently being "the inmoral bad guys" is actually more moral than giving the impression of being "the morally good guys"???
yes, threats arent nice, but they somehow serve avoid dead people. thats good enough me.
i wish i could paste a few pages on a book on decision theory i read lately.
its basically on an introductory economics level, nonetheless pretty interesting, and makes a pretty good analysis on those outguessing games and makes it easier to understand why certain decisions are made.
The top 5% in Third World countries are always right.