If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
And so it begins....
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A lone suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into the US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan today, killing seven and injuring dozens more. All the fatalaties were Pakistani employees, 1 police officer and a passer by.
Debris was scattered for half a mile in all directions, and the consulate itself suffered unknown structural damage:
http://www.msn.co.uk/news/panews02/
Can we expect more attacks like this, or is it a one off....? It just shows the frightening ease at which Al-Qaeda can retaliate against the USA/UK.
Debris was scattered for half a mile in all directions, and the consulate itself suffered unknown structural damage:
http://www.msn.co.uk/news/panews02/
Can we expect more attacks like this, or is it a one off....? It just shows the frightening ease at which Al-Qaeda can retaliate against the USA/UK.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The western world can indeed expect more of these attacks. They have been going on for ages, and at the moment it seems like they have found their weapon, and won't let go of it easily.
How do you fight against those who are willing and ready to die (horrifically) for their cause?
Helping them to it... but in your chosen time and place...
In other words, executing, or imprisoning, suspected suicide bombers?
How does one attempt to do that?
I assume Thanatos would just nuke the whole of Asia to ensure he gets them all, probably can't wait for Asia to errupt into nuclear warfare so he doesn't have to use all of his precious bombs.
I liked Thanatos' idea, but due to the fact that many here won't accept it, I will try explaining it in a bit of a more moderate way...
It's the whole attitude against it. You try to understand them, not hold grudges against them, and they will continue. Why? Cause the western world are suckers, and don't really strike back. So there's nothing to loose.
On the other hand, find their place, burn their fingers really hard, and they won't be able to carry out the attacks, as their fingers will not be capeable of creating, nor detoning the bomb. Mission suceeded; You have just saved a ricidulos big amount of lives. Good job!
(Should maybe contribute with an article for: Terrorists for dummies :rolleyes: )
Is there a moderate way to explain killing innocent people?
First of all, its spelt lose. Loose is the opposite of tight, not the opposite of win. Just a pet hate of mine.
Now, in regard to the point, I'd like to begin by quoting Peter Medaway:
If you burn their fingers, they're going to get more angry. More of them will join the cause. More suicide bombers will be created. Can I just ask if you really do not believe this will happen, or if you do but claim it won't for some twisted reason of your own? I mean it's common sense.
But surely if we burn all of them, the problem will go away? Well, for a start, it won't. Because they will have children, and their children will grow up and become bombers. The only way your plan can succeed is to kill them. All of them. Every potential terrorist must die. And I think you'll find that entails the majority of the world's population. Let's see that quote again...
:rolleyes: How is killing literally billions of people going to save lives?
The attitude of "kill them all" is destined to fail. And even were it to succeed, it would come at a huge cost in lives. Frankly, that would be something I would be deeply ashamed for my country to be a part of. Then you've got a new problem. Millions of dissenters within your own country who object to the slaughter of innocent lives en masse. What will you do then? Kill us?
Good points all there Vox Pops. I especially agree with this - killing potential suicide bombers is no better than the mass killing of Jews in Nazi Germany (and I don't say that lightly).
Be fair, English is her second language, and this is an exception: choose and chose don't have the same rule.
Personally I read his comments to mean us taking a pro-active stance rather than simply letting them come over here and blowing us up. He said nothing about nuking asia :rolleyes: or killing millions of innocents.
Same with Jacqs post. Im pretty sure shes not advocating nuclear weapons or anything of the sort, merely a strong method of dealing with those that wish us harm, the terrorists. She is talking about the terrorists, not any innocents.
It sounds like some of you are reading from a script and ignoring the fact that the counter arguments arent on the same subject.
Yep, bravo Vox!! Shame you didn't correct me before my english examination. Maybe I would have gotten a better grade :rolleyes:
But I would suggest you going into the anything goes, and sex forum. A heaven for someone as pedantic as you (if I will be lucky enough, you will be so busy correcting people there, that you won't come here with your stupid-ass comments)!
Sticking to the point and not pet hates...
Well, first I guess that you skipped a part of my sentence:
Missed the find their place, which referes to finding out where and who plans out these attacks. Those are the people who should try getting their fingers burnt. You do so efficient enough, and their children, grandchildren etc. will know who to mess with and who not.
Baldie got this point... But you Vox, you were so busy correcting spelling and grammar that you missed it.
So no, I am not talking about punishing an intire population. But believe it or not, it can be tracked who is behind these attacks :eek: And those are the ones who should feel the consequences.
Made myself more clear Vox darling???
Extra note: Havn't checked for spelling or grammar mistakes, so Vox cancel your plans for the night....
Excellent point. The goal here is to prevent further attacks. Vengence, while also a concern, is secondary. If the last fifty years has shown us anything about terrorist groups, its that no matter where they are, attacking them like you would attack a state doesn't work
It just gives them more motivation and more propaganda to get support.
If I had a dollar for every time that Thanatos advocated the use of nukes against the Middle East I would be living in Beverly Hills and driving a Porsche. It's not a wholly unreasonable assumption.
Maybe we should rethink the way that we use military force against this new enemy. You can't distiguish the combatants from the non-combatants from a bombsight 3 miles up. Normal military action doesn't work If it did, Russia wouldn't be having problems in Chechnya still, Israel wouldn't have their problems, Sri Lanka wouldn't still be in civil war. Face the facts, we'll have to fight dirty.
By this I mean using intelligence services to assassinate leaders of terrorist groups, small special forces raids, snooping through bank accounts. Hezbollah's web servers are in the US , for Christ's sake, should that be allowed seeing as it isn't an American organization?
You can say a lot of things about Thanatos but he doesnt beat about the bush. If he meant nuking the entire middle east then I suspect he probably would have said so.
Totally agree with you there. These terrorists have shifted the boundaries and we will have to adapt to succeed.
I'm sorry, I forgot. You cannot conceive any ideas beyond your own pre-conceptions. You have decided that to fight terror we must use terror ourselves, and that is your line of reasoning. You shun learning about differing points of view, just as you shun learning English.
Now, back to the argument:
In my post I highlighted quite clearly that "burning their fingers" (please do explain what the hell you actually do mean by this euphemism in your response; are you actually going to set them alight?) will not prevent their families and friends from taking up the fight. On a less extreme scale, do the families of murder victims simply say "well, clearly we don't want to mess with that murderer as well, in case he murders us, so we'll be quiet", or do they take up the fight for justice? I think in the overwhelming majority of cases the latter occurs. Why should we expect any different from the terrorists?
The West is engaging in a propaganda battle with bin Laden and his type, and losing severely. When he needs to recruit, he simply has to highlight the injustices committed against Muslims by the West and Israel, and he's gone a queue forming. Do you really think that bombing these peoples' homes is going to make them leave that queue? :rolleyes:
Another euphemism I noted was "burning their fingers efficient enough". Does this mean killing them? There's arguments for and against the death penalty, and I'm happy to hear them and accept that some people would want to execute criminals; it's their choice. But execute them without trial? No proof of guilt? This is barbaric.
Why not bomb them? Perhaps while they're at work? Sure, they'll be a few collatoral damages, but it's worth it if we get the terrorist, isn't it? We could even use a cruise missile, which flies to its target, crashes into it and destroys it. Now this is starting to sound familiar...
Moving on, I agree that massively increased intelligence on the part of the West is integral to preventing terror. But we need the right sort of intelligence. Spy satellites and phone taps are all very well, but are oh-so-easy for the terrorists to adapt to. When Osama bin Laden found out the US was tapping his satellite phone, what did he do? Stopped using the satellite phone. These groups can survive without technology through which the US can attack. For example, the archaic system of banking still used across much of the Islamic world (the name, unfortunately, escapes me currently) doesn't only have any electronic records, it hardly has paper records. At which point can a wire tap be used to intercept transactions using that?
What the West needs to do is to return to real intelligence gathering, which includes putting agents on the ground, who can, over a long time, infiltrate groups like al-Qaeda and get the information needed to not only stop approaching attacks, but shut the networks down for good. This hasn't been the case up to now for a number of reasons, particularly the US' late Cold War intelligence mentality that technology is king, the fear of domestic political repercussions arising from the loss of an agent, and also the fact that it isn't particularly attractive for your average agent to spend his life in a cave.
But perhaps it is too late for this. Such agents need a long time to integrate and gain trust; we're already at war with the terrorists, when ideally we should have had people in their groups for the past 20 years. I guess it's a failing on our part. But we can start to change it. Start trying to get agents in now, and perhaps we can avert both future terrorist attacks, and the need to bomb civilians.
[Edited to add: The name of the banking system is Hawala]
In cases like this, small raids led by infiltrators and commandoes would be a lot more effective than just bombing a random house or 10.
I agree with the above posts, small surgical strikes against known leaders, and known hideaways would be more effective.
But, that is the long term. I think we can expect more attacks like this, possibly on our own soil. Did anyone read about the terrorist plans to fly small, remote controlled planes packed with explosives into the engines of landing jumbo-jets? Now that is scary...
You have no idea of what attention is being paid by the governments of the United States, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Thailand, etc., do you?
Special Operations in all those countries has seen significant increases in budget and emphasis. Far greater than their conventional forces. Of course, SpecOps isn't an area that likes publicity.
...and if I had a dollar for every time that vox posted concerning"innocent people/combatants/terrorists, I would own ALL of Beverly Hills, and the Porsche factory...
If all of these people are "innocent", then who does the bombing, etc? :rolleyes:
btw... just in case you missed it, the main US combatants are currently SF, Rangers, and Marines, and the use of "a bombsight 3 miles up" is hardly within their MOS... Technology is great, it has given us 20 lb "assault rifles" with color TV monitors and remote controls... :eek: BUT, resolution will always come on the ground, close up and personal.
Please forgive my intrusion, Sir! but reality is an elusive and transitional state for some in attendance, including the persona you just quoted. It does not support their presumptive perspective, therefore must be dismissed.
Personally, I enjoy being kept in the dark as to what is happening, on a daily basis. If I do not know, then it is not being publicly broadcast for the perusal of the tangos.
OPSEC is a very valuable concept, and a useful tool.
Look, here's the offending sentence:
Now, personally, I took that to be in the same vein as Gen. Patton's famous, "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country: the objective is to make the other poor bastard die for his country."
Still sound like an horrific plan to reduce half the world's surface to radioactive slag? Didn't think so.
100% there, MacKenZie.
Well, thank you:)
Hmm, could be a possibility. But no, I was using a metaphor. Meant that strong actions should be taken against the responsible people of the terror acts. They do have a base, and with help from the government and close sources, it can be found out exactly where they have their base, who is involved and with what.
Tracking those places/bases, confiscating all useful material, ruining the rest, and evicting the people in charge to an isolated area with no contact to their "pupils", so they won't be able to cause more havoc, was more of what I had in mind. All of this, while keeping a close eye to possible/future terror-organisations and their leaders, and letting them know that "big-brother" is watching, and that a wrong step will be noticed, and reacted on.
I am sorry, but this whole sentence seems completely mixed up. If I had to convert a terrorist act into an "everyday" murder situation I would say that yes, the family of a murderer would have to accept the fact, that the murderer is getting punished for his act, don't you think?
The family will see the suffering of such an action affecting themselves, and think an extra time before they will even try going in the same direction as the person in question. And no this shouldn't differ when talking about terrorists.
And what justice are you talking about, by the way? The justice of blowing yourself and others up, for the case of "no, we don't like your ideology"?
And here is the example of why, it is so important to keep track on the education system in these places. Maybe if they knew a bit more of their history, they wouldn't be so eager to blame the rest of the world for all of their problems...
By the way, I didn't talk about bombing any homes. Unless it is a base for the plan-making of their attacks, that is. Can't see why the military should use perfectly valuable bombing material, on places with no significance.
:eek: Wow, we agree for once. Way to go! In these cases, it shouldn't be too hard finding evidence, if the governments and sources help out. There's a lot of evidence to be found, probably more than we do imagine.
Oh, and about the agents... Do you really believe yourself that no agents are set out in these kind of communities? Maybe not in the exact same cave as our oh-so-clever Osama, who doesn't use a cell-phone. But you'd be a fool to believe that agents are not set on the ground in places which the military and governments think are relevant.
Maybe it comes as a surprise, but the military forces do not publish all of their doings and information for everyone to see. Just because you haven't heard anything specific about it, doesn't mean it's not there. This also means, that I wouldn't be so hasty criticising the American military, they have got hell of a lot of stuff going on which you don't know about, and which you never will know about. Before you have entered and researched the way of controlling the US military, then please don't make assumptions of how and why.
Thank you.
Damn! I am a pushover for intelligent women!
The sentence isn't mixed up, merely your understanding of it. I will attempt to explain. When a murderer kills someone, does the victim's family run scared from the killer, fearing he will kill them too, or do they fight for him to be brought to justice? Take the example of Sarah Payne; did her parents hide away in fear, or try to help the police catch her abductor? The latter, I believe. As tends to be the case.
Now, transfer this metaphor to terrorism. When the US (in this case the murderer) kills (or otherwise burns the fingers of :rolleyes: ) a terrorist, are his family and friends simply run scared, never to dream of taking up terrorism again? No. They aren't. They are going to pick up guns and bombs and carry on the fight. This is what you seem to be incapable of understanding. To expect anything else is like expecting the US to simply put-up and shut-up with terrorism, which is an absurd suggestion and certainly one you would rail against.
Clearer now? Feel free to ask if more clarification is required.
"Keep track of the education system"? Surely this translates as indoctrination? How would you feel about Palestinians dictating what can and can't be taught in Israeli schools? Let's try and keep it realistic. Besides, such actions would simply breed more propaganda for the terrorists. I think you'll find the best way to eliminate the attraction of terrorism is to attempt to increase the living standards in their countries through aid. Contented (or at least fed) people are far less likely to engage in terror.
The military do use perfectly valuable bombing material on places of no significance, or indeed places which is horrific to bomb. Hospitals, schools, villages. All these have been attacked, whether intentionally or unintentionally in Afghanistan. And I fail to see how you can marry only executing those guilty of terrorism with executing them by bombing. Surely when you're bombing you cannot control who is present in the building? And do you intend to try the terrorists, then send them back to their houses to be blown up. You claim to agree that executing people without trial is barbaric, but then advocate blowing them up. Clarify.
Yes, I do believe there are not sufficient agents, as I did not come up with that impression spontaneously; I have read many articles in the wake of 11/9 criticising the lack of human agents inside Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.
If these agents are there, why couldn't they get information about 11/9 before it happened? Why have repeated attempts to capture bin Laden failed?
A classic example of a lack of intelligence occurred during the Kosovo conflict.
The US, using the latest spy satellite technology, were able to take pictures of Belgrade and pin-point a building to target. Then the military, using the latest super-intelligent laser-guided tea-making bombs, were able to blow it up. They hit it exactly on target, destroying it but none of the buildings around it; only the target. It was initially hailed as a success for their high-tech intelligence gathering, but there was a problem - they'd just hit the Chinese Embassy :rolleyes:. Had they actually had agents on the ground, they would have known what the building was. The technology was great; their lack of human intelligence failed them though.
I am incapable of understanding how the terrorists can be seen as innocent victims, when they indeed know what they are doing, and proud of it! They know the suffering which they cause, and they know that it's wrong.
Excuse me, but in the few 16 years of which I have lived, I have never seen a little boy getting a lollipop for hitting another boy. Nope this boy would in the society I live in, be taken aside, and get explained that the act was wrong, and that it won't be tolerated. A boy who will lose (hey, thanks for the grammar lesson
Same goes for terrorists. They should feel the consequences. Is the US/ Western world supposed to sit back and watch? I mean, it seems like that is what you are implying. But I will give you more credit than that, and want to hear what you think should be done. How would President Vox react?
No, this means that the money which gets invested in the school systems of the countries in question, should go to the school system. And checking what the fuck their teaching books are about wouldn't hurt either. We both now (or so I hope), that not all the facts in these books are put out in the correct way. Not all books give the details and how and why reasons.
First of all, what has this got to do with anything? While it has been proven that Palestinian schools use anti-Israel material (some cases, funded by respectable organisations as the EU), I haven't seen nor heard about that going on in Israeli school material.
Secondly, I am not the only one who has noticed your urge, to involve Israel in almost every thread which I contribute to. And then you go and tell me, that I am trying to impose my opinion about the Israel/Palestine conflict, in those same threads.
If you have anything else concrete about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I suggest that you start a thread about it.
Once again, I agree. But as pointed out earlier, the money which is given should be tracked. Or as MacKenZie always says, giving them a fishing rod, instead of handing over the fish. Now that would be an efficient way of helping and making sure that help goes to where it was intended to go.
I have used bombing as an example, never have I said ONLY bombing.
Yes sir!
I made myself unclear, I can see that now, but I meant no targeted executions without the evidence to back it up in these kind of cases. Would be a dumb thing to wait for a trial to go through, when you got a suicide bomber racing against the time.
Lack maybe, but implying that there's none... Wouldn't go there.
Got a secret for you. Between you and me, I promise you, there are agents stationed at places where governments/military think it is necessary, and have capability of. But shh! Don't tell anyone, that I told you
I don't know if you have been following, but within this last period of time, the CIA and FBI, have been exchanging harsh words, due to "who could have prevented this". Some sources have handed out information. How much they knew? I am sorry, but we will never know. But we do know, that someone was warned of something. Maybe it wasn't enough to prevent anything, but it just proves that the government does have its agents. So yes, there probably has been a lack of agents before the attack, but I am positive that this area is something which has been high-profiled since the attack.
And about Bin-Laden you yourself said that it was due to him stopping his usage of the cell phone.
I would suggest that instead of criticising, you should think a bit about what these soldiers are going through. Those caves, are not exactly equipped with signs saying "Bin Laden to the right, toilets on the left". They are fighting for survival, in order to keep the rest of us alive. Who are we to criticise their efforts? Fact is that you don't know how far they are with the search. But, it's stupid thinking that no one is on ground searching for him, cause of you not having heard, what exactly is going on in those caves.
And yes, that move with the Chinese embassy wasn't smart. We can find examples. But seriously, saying that the American army is only based on technology and gadgets, is not that intelligent of a remark to make, I would say. But then again, who am I to tell you? :rolleyes:
Vox was not suggesting that terrorists should not be hunted down and tried for their crimes. He was making the point that killing potential or suspected terrorists would be unacceptable.
All you have done is state the obvious. It gets less clear-cut when the choice is between blamket bombing and close combat. You are being a little naive here to say the least. You have over-inflated expectations of what is actually possible. You want to dictate what is taught in Afghan schools? How would one do that, and is that our responsisbility or right to do such a thing? You have offered no alternative to bombing, except in extremely vague terms, and bombing seemed to be your primary aim. Perhaps we miunderstood your post? Good point.
You accuse Vox of not knowing what the US/UK is up to in Afghanistan, yet expect us to believe your assumptions about the very same. You can't have it both ways. Speculation is not useful.
You've never spent any length of time in a third-world country, have you?
For some, Brother, it is safer to remain within their protected little microcosm, and speculate (verbally masturbate) concerning what they wish to be true. Rhetoric over reality. Mythology rules...
Just because you and I have been to the places we discuss does NOT mean that we comprehend what they have only read a distorted version of... again, their rhetoric trumps the reality that we experienced (or, for you, continues) first hand.