Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Still a game to you? Of course.....

    Have anything real to add?

    Maybe an actual opinion for once?
    I played in the game, I can use any analogy that I wish. I earned the right.

    I've posted my opinion on this subject dozens of times, why do so one more time. Giving a thumbs up to those that express my same thoughts is much easier. In this thread it's Marc and DoD that are being the thoughtful ones.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      I played in the game, I can use any analogy that I wish. I earned the right.

      I've posted my opinion on this subject dozens of times, why do so one more time. Giving a thumbs up to those that express my same thoughts is much easier. In this thread it's Marc and DoD that are being the thoughtful ones.
      Not a game, and we're all part of it. But at least we get a better picture of how you really feel.

      And of course you won't add anything, you never do.

      They have their opinions, I have mine. Yours? Who knows?
      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
        It exists in the ether.....

        The head(s) must be severed, is that satisfactory?

        Both methods are necessary. Which one will be at the front will ebb with time.

        More about the Irish....

        You seem to be quite a bigoted person, Marc......

        Be careful how you levy those accusations against others.

        But wait a second, it's OK to be bigoted against whites.........

        Me? I think everyone sucks, but right now I'm only concerned with the problems at hand.....


        Hindsight is always 20/20. And I'm much older now. However, I still have mixed feelings about Iraq and where that invasion should have gone. But that's for another thread.

        I've considered Bush a jack ass for about a decade. So what's your point about now?
        Interesting that mentioning the Irish as an example of how the current thinking about another situation becomes evidence of bigotry. If such comments are evidence of anti-white or anti-Irish bigotry what does that make you or those who think like you?
        "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
        G.B Shaw

        "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
        Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

        Comment


        • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          When the Senate Intelligence Committee designates an individual for a "lethal finding," or a district attorney swears out surveillance and/or arrest warrants, detailing the target's whereabouts as "the ether" just ain't gonna cut it -- for both legal and practical reasons.
          I was being sarcastic. I apologize for not using a smiley. Figured you would understand that, but I guess it went over your head.

          Now it seems you reject that there is a "head". That the islamic soldiers, terrorists, whatever are all that needs to be fought.

          You're entitled to that fantasy. But like I said, they will keep coming so long as islam is practiced as it is today.


          The way in which our world works these days, conventional notions of war are decidedly obsolete. The political leader who finds himself in a real war these days is either magnificently unlucky -- or a straight-up a$$hole. That being the case, the scalpel is the preferred tool when it comes to dealing with terrorists. It worked for the British in Malaya, so it only stands to reason that it should work elsewhere, as well.
          They are most certainly not obsolete. It exists all around the world. It will erupt again.

          But this war with islam is different, as I have said many times. There are times for the scalpel and the sledge. Both must be in the toolbox, along with many other tools.

          But you only see the terrorists as a threat. Not the idea. You are wrong.


          Yeah, my McGinniss ancestors from Armagh called me up just the other day to tell me that.

          It's not my fault that you didn't read newspapers throughout the 1970s and '80s. It's not my fault that you fail to see random violence as a political tool as the problem, rather than people who practice a religion that you don't like. Then again, you did claim ignorance about "The Dotbusters," and they were right there next to you in New Jersey . . . .
          Wow, a post from 6 yrs ago. I'm not sure if I should consider this stalking.

          Read my post from then. I said I should have known, but didn't. At the time, late 80s, the news and current events were very low on my priority list.

          Another fail for you......

          And if you are paying attention, you would realize that the violence is less random than you insist. That's why I advocate "severing the head".


          Yeah, I'm funny that way: I view Dotbusters every bit the terrorists as al Qaeda, if not in magnitude, then at least in corrosive impact on my community. I don't like bullies of any race or stripe.
          I've already stated that terrorists are terrorists responding to your Irish strawman.

          But the dotbusters, and the Irish are a poor comparison at best with current events. Unless one can't see beyond the terrorists themselves.

          Concerning whatever Irish blood you have, you've made it clear how proud of it you are in previous posts. Like a self hating Jew......



          How has invading Iraq, deposing her government, disbanding her police and military agencies, and leaving her prostrate before al Qaeda and Iranian interference advanced the US' fight against international terrorism?
          Like I said, I have very mixed feelings about Iraq. But that's for another thread.

          And I don't like Bush. Sorry to shatter your narrative.
          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            Interesting that mentioning the Irish as an example of how the current thinking about another situation becomes evidence of bigotry. If such comments are evidence of anti-white or anti-Irish bigotry what does that make you or those who think like you?
            You weren't paying attention. Marc uses the same argument to call others bigots.

            Terrorists are terrorists. 40yrs ago, or today. Get past the foot soldiers and the comparison fails.
            ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

            BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

            BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              You can say that about any community that has in its midst a violent fringe element. It might be that restricting immigration from the MidEast is the prudent thing to do, but in all likelihood making it stick for any length of time will prove rather problematic. The smart thing to do is to recruit from amongst the immigrants: interpreters, scholars, informers, spies, agents, etc. They're the ones who can point our intelligence and law enforcement agents in the direction of the bad guys. They can cultivate the contacts that prove fruitful in this game, rather than our personnel just running around in circles. We're not going to get that kind of intel by encouraging bigotry, lynchings and what not. If anything, we're liable to burn our sources, and discourage future cooperation. What good can come of that I can't possibly fathom.

              And bear in mind, the kind of lone wolf attacks recently launched in NY and NJ will always prove to be the hardest to sniff out. Guys like that aren't necessarily working in league with terror organizations, and they're as much motivated by their own pathology as they are by their politics, if not more so. Those crazy bastards are always going to be a threat, and there's probably little that government policy can do to eliminate them before they get busy planning attacks.



              When the Senate Intelligence Committee designates an individual for a "lethal finding," or a district attorney swears out surveillance and/or arrest warrants, detailing the target's whereabouts as "the ether" just ain't gonna cut it -- for both legal and practical reasons.



              The way in which our world works these days, conventional notions of war are decidedly obsolete. The political leader who finds himself in a real war these days is either magnificently unlucky -- or a straight-up a$$hole. That being the case, the scalpel is the preferred tool when it comes to dealing with terrorists. It worked for the British in Malaya, so it only stands to reason that it should work elsewhere, as well.



              Yeah, my McGinniss ancestors from Armagh called me up just the other day to tell me that.

              It's not my fault that you didn't read newspapers throughout the 1970s and '80s. It's not my fault that you fail to see random violence as a political tool as the problem, rather than people who practice a religion that you don't like. Then again, you did claim ignorance about "The Dotbusters," and they were right there next to you in New Jersey . . . .



              Yeah, I'm funny that way: I view Dotbusters every bit the terrorists as al Qaeda, if not in magnitude, then at least in corrosive impact on my community. I don't like bullies of any race or stripe.



              How has invading Iraq, deposing her government, disbanding her police and military agencies, and leaving her prostrate before al Qaeda and Iranian interference advanced the US' fight against international terrorism?

              Don't forget to answer in the form of a question.

              There's already enough Muslims in our countries to help fight terrorists the problem won't be mostly solved until fundraising for terrorist groups like the two largest financers Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't able to do so anymore.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by VinceW View Post
                There's already enough Muslims in our countries to help fight terrorists the problem won't be mostly solved until fundraising for terrorist groups like the two largest financers Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't able to do so anymore.
                The Terrorist "Wing" Scam
                Modern terrorist organizations have managed to flourish despite their enemies' attempts to squash them and have often done so by hiding in plain sight behind a nominal disguise. The most successful groups have achieved a kind of parity with the countries they attack by masquerading as complicated and diverse establishments for which terror is but one facet of their true—and variegated—nature. Nearly all terrorist organizations operating today have learned to conduct effective subterfuge by pretending to diversify.

                On the rhetorical level, the illusion is advanced when a terror organization claims for itself an ancillary "wing," "arm," or "branch." Most often it is either a "charitable wing" that operates orphanages and hospitals and distributes aid to the poor, or a "political wing" devoted to achieving the group's aims through negotiation. In reality though, the group and its newly-sprouted wings are never separate but rather integral, interdependent parts of a whole. The pose allows them to prosper by legitimizing their continued existence as aid providers or embryonic governments rather than terrorist groups.

                Even if a group does not itself refer to the new organization as its wing, eager journalists, academics and politicians surely will. The illusion of segmentation is among the most effective tools in the terrorists' propaganda kit as they cleverly play on the compassionate nature of their targets and exploit the myth that all charities are inherently good, that philanthropy is intrinsically a praiseworthy undertaking, and that freedom to practice one's religion is a universal right even when that practice denies basic human rights to others.

                Western nations are keen on rewarding those who participate in a democratic process and engage in negotiations because this is seen as the rational, civilized way to bridge differences. Mere participation in the political process becomes a desirable outcome in and of itself. Western nations also give generously to charitable causes and facilitate the work of others who do likewise.

                Terrorists understand this, and so like the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing they disguise their violent nature with the cloak of legitimacy through their nonviolent wings. Only by exposing the "wing" charade can states begin to adopt policies that effectively counter this ubiquitous tactic.

                The Confidence Game

                In the late nineteenth century, many radical organizations reveled in their infamy and wore the label terrorist proudly.[1] But after World War II, most sought to distance themselves from the newly-stigmatized term, calling themselves instead revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or resisters to imperialism.

                At the same time, however, another trend emerged in which terrorists sought to replace the notoriety of their predecessors with an appearance of legitimacy. This was a means of survival rather than an ideological shift. By transforming its image as a violent group into that of a provider of charitable services or a legitimate political player, a terrorist group gains the time and space necessary to sustain a campaign of violence.
                ...
                http://www.meforum.org/6261/the-terrorist-wing-scam

                Lengthy article but worth the read.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  In this thread it's Marc and DoD that are being the thoughtful ones.
                  Sshhhhh. Don't encourage him.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    The Terrorist "Wing" Scam
                    Modern terrorist organizations have managed to flourish despite their enemies' attempts to squash them and have often done so by hiding in plain sight behind a nominal disguise. The most successful groups have achieved a kind of parity with the countries they attack by masquerading as complicated and diverse establishments for which terror is but one facet of their true—and variegated—nature. Nearly all terrorist organizations operating today have learned to conduct effective subterfuge by pretending to diversify.

                    On the rhetorical level, the illusion is advanced when a terror organization claims for itself an ancillary "wing," "arm," or "branch." Most often it is either a "charitable wing" that operates orphanages and hospitals and distributes aid to the poor, or a "political wing" devoted to achieving the group's aims through negotiation. In reality though, the group and its newly-sprouted wings are never separate but rather integral, interdependent parts of a whole. The pose allows them to prosper by legitimizing their continued existence as aid providers or embryonic governments rather than terrorist groups.

                    Even if a group does not itself refer to the new organization as its wing, eager journalists, academics and politicians surely will. The illusion of segmentation is among the most effective tools in the terrorists' propaganda kit as they cleverly play on the compassionate nature of their targets and exploit the myth that all charities are inherently good, that philanthropy is intrinsically a praiseworthy undertaking, and that freedom to practice one's religion is a universal right even when that practice denies basic human rights to others.

                    Western nations are keen on rewarding those who participate in a democratic process and engage in negotiations because this is seen as the rational, civilized way to bridge differences. Mere participation in the political process becomes a desirable outcome in and of itself. Western nations also give generously to charitable causes and facilitate the work of others who do likewise.

                    Terrorists understand this, and so like the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing they disguise their violent nature with the cloak of legitimacy through their nonviolent wings. Only by exposing the "wing" charade can states begin to adopt policies that effectively counter this ubiquitous tactic.

                    The Confidence Game

                    In the late nineteenth century, many radical organizations reveled in their infamy and wore the label terrorist proudly.[1] But after World War II, most sought to distance themselves from the newly-stigmatized term, calling themselves instead revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or resisters to imperialism.

                    At the same time, however, another trend emerged in which terrorists sought to replace the notoriety of their predecessors with an appearance of legitimacy. This was a means of survival rather than an ideological shift. By transforming its image as a violent group into that of a provider of charitable services or a legitimate political player, a terrorist group gains the time and space necessary to sustain a campaign of violence.
                    ...
                    http://www.meforum.org/6261/the-terrorist-wing-scam

                    Lengthy article but worth the read.
                    During any other time then the self loathing PC era we're in now no Western society would stand for any of this behaviour.
                    Last edited by VinceW; 25 Sep 16, 10:35.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                      I was being sarcastic. I apologize for not using a smiley. Figured you would understand that, but I guess it went over your head.

                      Now it seems you reject that there is a "head". That the islamic soldiers, terrorists, whatever are all that needs to be fought.

                      You're entitled to that fantasy. But like I said, they will keep coming so long as islam is practiced as it is today.




                      They are most certainly not obsolete. It exists all around the world. It will erupt again.

                      But this war with islam is different, as I have said many times. There are times for the scalpel and the sledge. Both must be in the toolbox, along with many other tools.

                      But you only see the terrorists as a threat. Not the idea. You are wrong.




                      Wow, a post from 6 yrs ago. I'm not sure if I should consider this stalking.

                      Read my post from then. I said I should have known, but didn't. At the time, late 80s, the news and current events were very low on my priority list.

                      Another fail for you......

                      And if you are paying attention, you would realize that the violence is less random than you insist. That's why I advocate "severing the head".




                      I've already stated that terrorists are terrorists responding to your Irish strawman.

                      But the dotbusters, and the Irish are a poor comparison at best with current events. Unless one can't see beyond the terrorists themselves.

                      Concerning whatever Irish blood you have, you've made it clear how proud of it you are in previous posts. Like a self hating Jew......





                      Like I said, I have very mixed feelings about Iraq. But that's for another thread.

                      And I don't like Bush. Sorry to shatter your narrative.
                      Originally posted by VinceW View Post
                      There's already enough Muslims in our countries to help fight terrorists the problem won't be mostly solved until fundraising for terrorist groups like the two largest financers Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't able to do so anymore.
                      Not all Muslims have the same view on Jihad. Not all Muslims are religious, some practicing Muslims drink alcohol and gamble. Certainly I will not deny the words people say, I will not deny that ISIL members say they are Muslims, I wont deny that Syrian and Iraqi Muslims oppose ISIL, I wont deny that AQ was a Muslim group, and I wont deny that Muslims support the USA. Here is the proof to back up my points in this post,






                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

                      http://www.thenational.ae/thenationa...-worth-marking

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim...tates_military
                      Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                      Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                      George S Patton

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        I've said it before... The only real war crime is losing. Sure, we can quibble over casualties... 110,000 dead bombing Tokyo... 70,000 at Hiroshima... How many in Berlin, Dresden... whatever...

                        It's only morally reprehensible if we choose to see it that way. The Nazis had no problem offing 6 million in the Holocaust unit they lost and got called on the mat for it. Their mistake was losing, much to the betterment of the world no doubt...

                        I'm not calling for or advocating genocide here at all however. What I'm saying is that fighting a war viciously and accepting that there's some collateral damage is fine in my view.
                        Our forces think, [I]think,[I] the enemy is using a mosque for cover or as a, say, headquarters... We flatten it with a large GBU. If we're wrong, sorry. If we're right we advance our cause towards winning.
                        If there are civilian casualties, too bad. $h!+ happens in wars. This trying to prevent ALL civilian casualties, only using "appropriate" force to fight a particular opponent, is all utter nonsense. It's trying to use the military as police and treating our enemies as if they were petty felons committing a crime. It's utterly asinine.
                        QFT. I agree we aren't at war with Islam but I also disagree with tiptoeing through the tulips with the enemies we are at war with. War is hell and the more hellish it is for the enemy the sooner it will be over.
                        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X