225327 Bullies, 4117 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 31 to 40 of 111
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Lights Out is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,173

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 4:49pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON View Post
    That statement isn't particularly cogent. Of course you can't "kill terrorism" any more than you can "boil jogging."
    Yeah, but this seems to be lost in the rethorics of some people.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON View Post
    What you CAN do is destroy an institution. Especially when that organization's stated goal is the killing of everyone with a religious preference that is NOT Al-Wahabi Islam.

    Institutions like, maybe Al-Qaeda? Trust me, you can shoot the **** out of them.
    But the issue here is that it seems that not many people understadn what Al-Quaeda is. It is more of a network rather than an organization with a solid structure.

    Islamic terrorism consist mainly of many isolated cells with the ability to act autonomously. More often than not they aren't particulary very connected. some may use this "al-quaeda" network to share information, but that's all. Trying to fight Al-Quaeda this way is like trying to fight an ant nest killing one ant at the time, while ants are born quicker than you can kill them.

    You can shoot Al-Quaeda the same way you can shoot a shodow.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON View Post
    Kinda like ETA? Or GAL? Perhaps 11-M?
    Different organizations with different structures. You obviously have no idea what your talking about, or you wouldn't have thrown together ETA and the GAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON View Post
    Lose any loved ones?
    Fortunately no, but it is very classy of you to ask so.
  2. ArrogantBastard is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    351

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 4:53pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lights Out View Post
    Sigged.

    Seems to me that the word "terrorist" is the western equivalent for "infidel", it sure gets trhown around a lot.

    And now we hear people talking about collateral casualties with the same lack of concern as the "terrorists" talk about "infidels".

    "It's OK because they are terrorists/infidels anyway".

    Yeah, way to make a point.

    But you can target terrorist organizations.

    Also the term infidel has been overemphasized by the media. Christian churches used to use that term a lot, and in Islam it technically it refers to people who do not believe in a single God (e.g. Christians and Jews are not infidels).
  3. ArrogantBastard is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    351

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 5:00pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lights Out View Post
    Yeah, but this seems to be lost in the rethorics of some people.



    But the issue here is that it seems that not many people understadn what Al-Quaeda is. It is more of a network rather than an organization with a solid structure.

    Islamic terrorism consist mainly of many isolated cells with the ability to act autonomously. More often than not they aren't particulary very connected. some may use this "al-quaeda" network to share information, but that's all. Trying to fight Al-Quaeda this way is like trying to fight an ant nest killing one ant at the time, while ants are born quicker than you can kill them.

    You can shoot Al-Quaeda the same way you can shoot a shodow.



    Different organizations with different structures. You obviously have no idea what your talking about, or you wouldn't have thrown together ETA and the GAL.



    Fortunately no, but it is very classy of you to ask so.
    There are still major financiers (or major finance networks), suppliers, and high tier leaders. Targeting these hinders the operation of multiple cells at once.

    Without higher direction, proper financing, and supplies, independent cells have significantly reduced capabilities.

    Furthermore, indirect targeting (e.g. stabilization) denies terrorist organizations of their operational area (less places they can safely operate in).
    Last edited by ArrogantBastard; 10/18/2009 5:08pm at .
  4. Lights Out is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,173

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 5:05pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrogantBastard View Post
    But you can target terrorist organizations.

    Also the term infidel has been overemphasized by the media.
    Agreed to some extent on #1 and completely in #2.

    But it also applies to the term "terrorist".

    It gets thrown around a lot lately and it has served to get some people lost in a semantics debate while others are happy to label that way anybody who opposes them.

    As SFGOON hinted, I'm from a country which has suffered the pest of terrorism for decades, and I'm personally not comfortable on how the term is used, more as an excuse to conveniently demonize an organization, a country, or anybody who opposes certain politics.

    "Oh, don't mind us, we're just fightintg terrorism, let us handle it", and such.
    Last edited by Lights Out; 10/18/2009 5:22pm at .
  5. ArrogantBastard is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    351

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 5:12pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lights Out View Post
    Also the term infidel has been overemphasized by the media.

    Agreed to some extent on #1 and completely in #2.

    But it also applies to the term "terrorist".

    It gets thrown around a lot lately and it has served to get some people lost in a semantics debate while others are happy to label that way anybody who opposes them.

    As SFGOON hinted, I'm from a country which has suffered the pest of terrorism for decades, and I'm personally not comfortable on how the term is used, more as an excuse to conveniently demonize an organization, a country, or anybody who opposes certain politics.

    "Oh, don't mind us, we're just fightintg terrorism, let us handle it", and such.
    I agree. I blame the media, various stupid politicians, and stupidity of people in general.
  6. vigilus is offline
    vigilus's Avatar

    Infidel

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    2,294

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 10:44pm


     Style: Yoshinkan Aikido, MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Terrorist and Infidel DO get over used in the media. Be that as it may there are still people out there who's basic belief is that we in the west are infidels and should be killed for no other reason than not being like them. They believe any act of violence against us causing death ges them a nice sexy set up in heaven. Fucking religion.

    Anyways, Lights out, you mentioned something I'd like to expand on.
    As SFGOON hinted, I'm from a country which has suffered the pest of terrorism for decades, and I'm personally not comfortable on how the term is used, more as an excuse to conveniently demonize an organization, a country, or anybody who opposes certain politics.
    How has terrorist acts in your country impacted your daily life?
    In some places terrorist attacks and rampant. Do YOU have to wake up at 430 am to goto the market to get food as eairly as possble? - Because mid day is when most people are active hence prime bombing time.

    Here's one of the problems with how some (many) westerns see terrorisim.
    It's never really impacted out lifestyle. SO many other counries deal with it on a day to day basis, we're sheltered.
    9/11 is large scale but lets talk small scale. What's ONE incident of terrorist tactics/attacks in the US recently which paralized a good chunk of the eastern seaboard.
    Washington DC snipers. They killed 10 people over the span of a few days or weeks. Now overseas IEDs have killed 5 times that many people,why were 10 people such a big deal? (with all due respect to their family)
    Psychological factor. That **** isn't something we deal with on a day to day basis.
    Parents were pulling their kids out of schools, people were doing all kinds of funky things at gas stations, people were calling in sick from work.
    Yes people die in gang vionece, school shootings but there is a big psychological difference when it comes to 'terrorisim' (yes which the media is to blame for fear mongering). It's probably cause for another thread but the psychological thing is a big factor, like how people fear knives more then firearms on average.

    Considering the reaction from the 10 deaths of the DC snipers, can you imagine what kind of national fear would be going on if "terrorist" bombs started touching off in cities? The kind of civil uproar and unrest that would be casued? All because up until now terroirisim has never really impacted the day to day lives of average citizens.

    In Iraq a few bombs go off in a day and life goes on, people reroute their path to work. If a few bombs touched off in the US the whole country would be in uproar.

    I just see one way to prevent (or help prevet) that stuff from happening at home is to catch it where it origionates.

    There aren't many options IMO.
    You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it
  7. maofas is offline
    maofas's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,975

    Posted On:
    10/18/2009 10:58pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Kenkojuku Karate, Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    See, I don't believe you're "catching it where it originates" because the same guy you shoot today in Iraq would not be getting on a plane tomorrow bound for NYC if only he weren't too busy fighting you. Most of these guys are locals fighting people they see as invaders + bombing each other as they fight for political control in a power vacuum.

    It's not like the U.S. was being bombarded by Muslim extremists daily and it only ceased when we invaded a country which had nothing to do with it.

    I think we'd be better off pulling out entirely and beefing up the FBI + working with Interpol (i.e. basically do better police work, not invade countries).
  8. ArrogantBastard is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    351

    Posted On:
    10/19/2009 12:39am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by maofas View Post
    See, I don't believe you're "catching it where it originates" because the same guy you shoot today in Iraq would not be getting on a plane tomorrow bound for NYC if only he weren't too busy fighting you. Most of these guys are locals fighting people they see as invaders + bombing each other as they fight for political control in a power vacuum.
    The major focus of most of the anti-terrorist missions are aimed at dismantling the infrastructure of terrorist organizations and dismantling the environments which they prosper in.

    It is naive to believe that the military forces are "just killing terrorist" (similar to that analogy someone said earlier about killing one ant at a time).

    These tend to be the priority tasks:
    There are still major financiers (or major finance networks), suppliers, and high tier leaders. Targeting these hinders the operation of multiple cells at once.

    Without higher direction, proper financing, and supplies, independent cells have significantly reduced capabilities.

    Furthermore, indirect targeting (e.g. stabilization) denies terrorist organizations of their operational area (less places they can safely operate in) and decreases their recruitment pool.
    It is also naive to believe that the terrorist/insurgents in the Middle East wouldn't consider operating in another country or for another cause. The 9/11 hijackers are a clear example of this--they originally wanted to fight in Chechnya, but were ultimately convinced to go the US (the first group anyways).

    It is also important to note that there are significant foreign influences in both Iraq and Afghanistan terrorist/insurgent groups. Plenty of their operatives are recruited from other countries. For example, almost all the suicide bombings in Iraq are not done by Iraqi insurgents.


    It's not like the U.S. was being bombarded by Muslim extremists daily and it only ceased when we invaded a country which had nothing to do with it.
    Afghanistan had plenty to do with 9/11; Iraq, no so much.
    However, the intelligence gathered from OEF/OIF have helped secure the country in addition to the elimination of many leaders/financiers.

    I think we'd be better off pulling out entirely and beefing up the FBI + working with Interpol (i.e. basically do better police work, not invade countries).
    Most people in the intelligence community would say we should beef up the CIA while promoting greater synergy between the agencies. The CIA has far greater overseas intelligence capabilities, don't know why people always mention the FBI instead.

    Also, some people are advocating greater use of airstrikes/UAV's/etc. over the use of soldiers. It will prevent the loss losses on the US side, but will decrease humint capabilities (e.g. info from informants, interrogations, etc) among other things. Furthermore, I don't see how you can stabilize a country through this method (stabilization is considered one of the few ways to prevent terrorist recruitment). Wouldn't hurt though.

    Interpol? Don't hold your breathe.
    Last edited by ArrogantBastard; 10/19/2009 12:49am at .
  9. colonelpong2 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,090

    Posted On:
    10/19/2009 3:07am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Kickboxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrost View Post
    Thomas Paine once told a story about a man who while holding the hand of his child, was making a comment about how he wished for "peace in my time". Paine then pointed out why any man with a spine would hope that, if there be war, it'd be in his time so his child could live in peace.
    This is very well put.

    For me, the decision to sign up was because I desired to serve a purpose and make a difference in the world. I know that sounds trite and wet, but that was it.
    So while I was still studying at university I joined the Territorial Force (TF), essentially a part time soldier/weekend warrior/cut lunch commando or what Americans would refer to as a reservist.
    Once I had finished my degree, I joined the regular force (RF).
    I had been unsure about whether to enter the RF until East Timor came up.
    When I learned what those poor bastards there were going through I felt I had to do something.
    NZ and Australia were set to go in at the time to restore order and drive out the viciously mad militias established by the Indonesian regime before their withdrawal.
    So I figured this is my chance to do some good. So I signed the dotted line and off I went into the regular force (RF).
    Ironically, I never made it to Timor.
    When I went for the RF my eyesight was right on the borderline and there was some debate as to whether or not to let me on those grounds.
    But I had top recommendations from the cadre staff in the TF, so they admitted me.
    Later, two weeks before what was to be my first deployment to Timor they conducted the final med checks. My eyesight had degraded slightly and I was below the required level for operational deployment.
    Some months prior to this I had been offered a trial position with the battalion intelligence section.
    I had declined because I wanted to deploy with my own guys, whom I had lived and trained with for so long.
    All of the officers and NCO's in the unit went in to bat for me and requested that a little lenience be shown on the official eyesight requirement in my case.
    Of course it wasn't, but I was really pleased that everyone had my back.

    Once it became evident that deployment wasn't happening unless my eyesight miraculously improved, I approached the Int section and asked if the offer was still open.
    It was.
    So I ended up assisting the Timor operation from an office right here at home.
    This mostly involved staring at maps, reading reports and jumping to conclusions.
    Strange.
    I know I contributed positively to the operation, but still feel that I could have done more if I was in theater.
    But hey, that's just the way it goes some times.

    Anyway, I digress. To my way of thinking becoming a soldier is a decision to be made in the interest of serving others. Fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.
    I know its totally wet and sappy sounding, but that is my view on it.
    Some people join up out of "patriotic" reasons, talking about "Serving their country" etc.
    For some people that is reason enough. But to me it is not the right reason.
    Why should the place you are born dictate your allegiances?

    To my way of thinking, if you join the services it should be to help those who need help.

    Just my point of view on the matter.
  10. Lights Out is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,173

    Posted On:
    10/19/2009 10:41am

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GuiltySpark View Post
    How has terrorist acts in your country impacted your daily life?
    In some places terrorist attacks and rampant. Do YOU have to wake up at 430 am to goto the market to get food as eairly as possble? - Because mid day is when most people are active hence prime bombing time.
    Personally *I* are really not that affected by terrorism. That doesn't mean a wide lot of politicians (the big ones and the small ones too), intelectuals, journalists, college teachers (yes, not kidding), writers, judges, attorneys, and not to mention milatayr and police staff are threatened everyday. Some have to walk with private guard, others look everyday under their cars to look for bombs, others have to walk with an eye on the back just in case they are kidnapped or shot in the back of the head... maybe we're not getting bombed everyday, but that doesn't mean terrorism is a joke here.

    Also, somebody mentioned 11-M. Had not my father been pre-retired, a year before, he had been on that train.

    This thread has derived on the Iraq issue, and some people have put it better than me on that regard, I won't go there.

    But I want to tell you, GuiltySpark, this.

    I have much respect for people who decide to join the military or any other armed corps, such as the police or whatever. specially if they are depolyed in such places as Iraq, Afgahnistan, Liberia, etc.

    I do not partake in the non-explicit sentiment here on bullshido that someone in the military has a higher moral stand or better insight on geopolitics, but I do respect them for the risks they take.

    But what really irks me, is I feel some of you have been thrown into a hell not to protect your families, your country or your values, but for the economic interests of a minority in your own country.

    I feel you have been deceited to some degree.

    For me war is not something inherently good or bad. There are wars which need to be fought and there are wars hardly justifiable.
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.