Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pointing out that there are reasons for terrorist attacks is not the same as justifying the terrorist attacks.

 Formosa wrote:
I have a counter proposal, give them what they want, a full scale war, we should treat these people like we treated the nazis and systematically wipe them out, then make sure they know for generations to come, don't feth with Europe.

Well, if "those people" (meaning the terrorists, I hope, and not a broader group) could only be convinced to leave the communities of innocents surrounding them and stand in orderly rows in fields to be carpet bombed, that might be an option.

So far they seem unwilling.

With the recent rise of Christian terrorists, we need to stop considering terrorism to be Islam only. It's just exremists (usually conservative) of any stripe.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have a counter proposal, give them what they want, a full scale war, we should treat these people like we treated the nazis and systematically wipe them out, then make sure they know for generations to come, don't feth with Europe.

I don't think it would work, I can't think of single historical precedent for terrorists being defeated by "full scale war". The best way to deal with terrorists is to undermine their support. Most people only look to extremists when they feel they are out of other options. If people feel they can make a nice life for themselves by running their farms and businesses, then violent fanatics are just a liability.

The Mongols in dealing with the Hashashin.
The US in dealing with the Comanche.

I'd say the Comanche/Mongol wars were actually a more traditional type of war. While the Comanche did employ terror tactics, both sides knew (for the most part) who they were fighting. I considered the the Russians in Chechnya as a possible example, but it's hard to say how effective they really were.

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The US in dealing with the Comanche.

Give them weapons and encourage them to attack Mexican settlements?

That was the comancheros, not the US military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
With the recent rise of Christian terrorists, we need to stop considering terrorism to be Islam only. It's just exremists (usually conservative) of any stripe.

ECO Terrorists are lefties. Leftwing guerrillas and terrorists in Latin America and Asia are leftists.

I'd say the Comanche/Mongol wars were actually a more traditional type of war. While the Comanche did employ terror tactics, both sides knew (for the most part) who they were fighting. I considered the the Russians in Chechnya as a possible example, but it's hard to say how effective they really were.

Agreed.

 skyth wrote:
With the recent rise of Christian terrorists, we need to stop considering terrorism to be Islam only. It's just exremists (usually conservative) of any stripe.

Usually conservative? Did you forget about the myriad of revolutionary organisations using terrorist tactics?

It is true that terrorism is not unique to islam though. Everyone thinking that is slow. Over the course of history, terrorism has been used by virtually every kind of ideology imaginable. Even most states have engaged in terrorism at certain points in their history.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Indeed, here we go again - with another justification of terrorism. This place never ceases to amaze me.

I, on the other hand, have grown completely accustomed to people living in "whatever my side does is justified, whatever the other side does is unjustified" lalaland.

Eco terrorists are a minority and usually go after machinery rather than trying to kill people.

'Left-wing' guerrillas are often conservative as well. Soviet Russia was left-wing and I would consider them conservatives. I'm mostly speaking of social conservatives.

 skyth wrote:
Eco terrorists are a minority and usually go after machinery rather than trying to kill people.

'Left-wing' guerrillas are often conservative as well. Soviet Russia was left-wing and I would consider them conservatives. I'm mostly speaking of social conservatives.

Spiking trees is designed to harm people.

Your definition of conservative seems to incorporate...everyone. Thats interesting.

Harm is not the same as kill. Stil, true liberal terrorists are annomolies...much rarer than conservative terrorists. I also don't consider guerillas/rebels (groups fighting to take over/liberate territory) the same as terrorists (groups trying to kill people because they are different from them).

And social conservative (the definition I gave) does not mean everyone.

 skyth wrote:
Harm is not the same as kill. Stil, true liberal terrorists are annomolies...much rarer than conservative terrorists. I also don't consider guerillas/rebels (groups fighting to take over/liberate territory) the same as terrorists (groups trying to kill people because they are different from them).

And social conservative (the definition I gave) does not mean everyone.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think you're as familiar with leftist guerrillas. They've fallen out of favor for the moment or been co-opted by the cartels.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Harm is not the same as kill. Stil, true liberal terrorists are annomolies...much rarer than conservative terrorists. I also don't consider guerillas/rebels (groups fighting to take over/liberate territory) the same as terrorists (groups trying to kill people because they are different from them).

And social conservative (the definition I gave) does not mean everyone.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think you're as familiar with leftist guerrillas. They've fallen out of favor for the moment or been co-opted by the cartels.

History is littered with leftist guerrillas... just look at the Cuban Communist revolution (hello Che/Costro!) or even the South American FARC groups.

In response to the OP:
The message shouldn't be “Please forgive us because our existence makes your radicals so angry that they keep mass murdering us,” but “deal with this problem or the West will do it for you.”

Don't wake up the Sleeping Giant™.

How can the West do it for you that is not being done now?

 Frazzled wrote:
How can the West do it for you that is not being done now?

I honestly don't know... I really honestly don't know how to convey this point.

All I know is that, at some point, the West will stop taking it in the teeth like this.

When that happens, it's either total annihilation, or a real-nation-building strategy on par to post-WW2 Japan and West Germany.

The political will is nowhere near there yet...

Unfortunately there is a third option, a tribal option that is a traditionally human as it is savage. Let us hope this does not occur as it continues to occur in places like Nigeria,like what occurred in Yugoslavia.

Europe has had a strong history of culture, but its also had a very very violent culture that is just a few decades old, in our lifetime.

 Frazzled wrote:
Unfortunately there is a third option, a tribal option that is a traditionally human as it is savage. Let us hope this does not occur as it continues to occur in places like Nigeria,like what occurred in Yugoslavia.

Europe has had a strong history of culture, but its also had a very very violent culture that is just a few decades old, in our lifetime.

World War? ugh...

Im pretty sure this is one of those cant beat them situations :/

sorry to say but the way they operate war wont work, prevention wont catch them all.

all we really could do is divert attention. mostly by making them fight each other.

though i dont think that has always worked out so well has it.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unfortunately there is a third option, a tribal option that is a traditionally human as it is savage. Let us hope this does not occur as it continues to occur in places like Nigeria,like what occurred in Yugoslavia.

Europe has had a strong history of culture, but its also had a very very violent culture that is just a few decades old, in our lifetime.

World War? ugh...

Yugoslavian civil war, Bosnia, and Kosova ring a bell? Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, all thus fun filled happy places.

 Frazzled wrote:
How can the West do it for you that is not being done now?

Hang our politicians and install some who won't think that commercial interests justify assassinations, mass murder, exploitation, and intentional disruption of democratic and nation-building processes.

Not seeing how that would have helped the attacks in Brussels or Paris. Cartoonists weren't slaughtered because of exploitation. Jews weren't picked out and shot because of commercial interests. The Khobar towers didn't come down because of commercial interests. The explosions in Turkey last week did not occur because of commercial interests. The attack on the beach at Ivory Coast was not because of commercial interest.

Obviously we need more than a pure military response.

Having said that, listening to the radio while taking Daughter to school, one guy opined 'The moderate Muslims are terrified of us, terrified we'll over react'. I submit they are not terrified enough to clean up their own mess, not terrified enough that they push their religious leaders to implement the type of reform Christianity went through, not terrified enough that they quit funding (zakat) and otherwise supporting (even if through inaction) the radical elements in their neighborhoods.

These are lines of effort the West is failing at. Maybe because not enough resources are expended (doubtful), maybe because of ignorance, maybe because of lack of will. Massive pressure needs to be put on Muslim nations (both in the form of carrots and Big fething Sticks) for the governments to push for religious reform. A few imams pushing for reform need to have their messages amplified and resourced. A very brutal crackdown on how all this is funded needs to occur, and it can't just come from western sources. A new type of madrassa needs to emerge, teaching not only a reformed version of Islam, but teaching how fething evil and perverted using pillars of Islam to fund jihad is. Individual Muslims and Muslim families need quit paying Zakat until the Imams understand this gak is no longer acceptable.

None of it is easy, and frankly a lot of people do need to get capped for any of it to work. And it is not a quick fix, honestly it is a generational effort but it can be kickstarted.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that would have helped the attacks in Brussels or Paris. Cartoonists weren't slaughtered because of exploitation. Jews weren't picked out and shot because of commercial interests. The Khobar towers didn't come down because of commercial interests. The explosions in Turkey last week did not occur because of commercial interests. The attack on the beach at Ivory Coast was not because of commercial interest.

Do you understand cause and effect? Terrorists aren't evil for the lulz.

These people are angry because their culture, their ethnicity, their economy and their lives are under constant attack. For decades, the US, Israel and their braindead cohorts have been disrupting normal economic, political and cultural evolution in the middle east at the best of times, and outright mass murdering people at the worst of times. And you don't seem to understand that what we're seeing today are long-term consequences of that. You think that you can do anything you want, kill anyone, steal anything, and you can't even comprehend that the consequences of your actions are consequences of your actions. You think people just get up one day and decide to hate you for no reason. Although, of course, you are quite eager to embrace the concept of retaliation once you're the one under fire - but all the while never understanding that the actions you're retaliating against were themselves retaliation for your original attack.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that would have helped the attacks in Brussels or Paris. Cartoonists weren't slaughtered because of exploitation. Jews weren't picked out and shot because of commercial interests. The Khobar towers didn't come down because of commercial interests. The explosions in Turkey last week did not occur because of commercial interests. The attack on the beach at Ivory Coast was not because of commercial interest.

Do you understand cause and effect? Terrorists aren't evil for the lulz.

These people are angry because their culture, their ethnicity, their economy and their lives are under constant attack. For decades, the US, Israel and their braindead cohorts have been disrupting normal economic, political and cultural evolution in the middle east at the best of times, and outright mass murdering people at the worst of times. And you don't seem to understand that what we're seeing today are long-term consequences of that. You think that you can do anything you want, kill anyone, steal anything, and you can't even comprehend that the consequences of your actions are consequences of your actions. You think people just get up one day and decide to hate you for no reason. Although, of course, you are quite eager to embrace the concept of retaliation once you're the one under fire - but all the while never understanding that the actions you're retaliating against were themselves retaliation for your original attack.

But but we're the GOOD GUYS

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that would have helped the attacks in Brussels or Paris. Cartoonists weren't slaughtered because of exploitation. Jews weren't picked out and shot because of commercial interests. The Khobar towers didn't come down because of commercial interests. The explosions in Turkey last week did not occur because of commercial interests. The attack on the beach at Ivory Coast was not because of commercial interest.

Do you understand cause and effect? Terrorists aren't evil for the lulz.

These people are angry because their culture, their ethnicity, their economy and their lives are under constant attack. For decades, the US, Israel and their braindead cohorts have been disrupting normal economic, political and cultural evolution in the middle east at the best of times, and outright mass murdering people at the worst of times. And you don't seem to understand that what we're seeing today are long-term consequences of that. You think that you can do anything you want, kill anyone, steal anything, and you can't even comprehend that the consequences of your actions are consequences of your actions. You think people just get up one day and decide to hate you for no reason. Although, of course, you are quite eager to embrace the concept of retaliation once you're the one under fire - but all the while never understanding that the actions you're retaliating against were themselves retaliation for your original attack.

Again, none of that has anything to do with Ivory Coast, the bombings and attacks in Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Libya etc. etc.

Help me out. When were the terrorists in France and Belgium under fire by the US and Israel that drove them to their ways? I must have missed this attack by the US on NATO.
When were the Tsaervaev brothers under attack by the Evilz US and Israel when they came to the US as refugees? How about the San Bernardino attackers? I lived near SB. While the utter lack of water made you feel like an alien, I missed da evilz Israeli army attacking. I would have thought all the Marines in San Diego would have done something about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that would have helped the attacks in Brussels or Paris. Cartoonists weren't slaughtered because of exploitation. Jews weren't picked out and shot because of commercial interests. The Khobar towers didn't come down because of commercial interests. The explosions in Turkey last week did not occur because of commercial interests. The attack on the beach at Ivory Coast was not because of commercial interest.

Do you understand cause and effect? Terrorists aren't evil for the lulz.

These people are angry because their culture, their ethnicity, their economy and their lives are under constant attack. For decades, the US, Israel and their braindead cohorts have been disrupting normal economic, political and cultural evolution in the middle east at the best of times, and outright mass murdering people at the worst of times. And you don't seem to understand that what we're seeing today are long-term consequences of that. You think that you can do anything you want, kill anyone, steal anything, and you can't even comprehend that the consequences of your actions are consequences of your actions. You think people just get up one day and decide to hate you for no reason. Although, of course, you are quite eager to embrace the concept of retaliation once you're the one under fire - but all the while never understanding that the actions you're retaliating against were themselves retaliation for your original attack.

But but we're the GOOD GUYS

trying to figure out how any of that relates to Belgium, or Paris, or Turkey, or San Bernardino, or Pakistan, or India, or Libya, it ust goes on and on and on.
People do realize terrorism in this region was a thing before Europeans even landed in the Americas right?

Do you need to be personally under fire to get angry about someone slaughtering American citizens? 9/11 was easily accepted by the public as a pretense for attacking two countries, so I guess people get upset when their tribe gets attacked even if they're not directly involved. Now try to imagine how that ends up working when you do a 9/11 every day for 40 years. When entire nations fall into ruin because you want cheap oil or because your president's friend in Lockheed Martin wants to make a few extra billion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Terrorism" was a thing in every region. It's not a thing in the west anymore because we have built a society where life is worth living. The US is actively preventing the middle east from doing the same.

We all know how this will end, the way it always ends. The side that is the most friendly with the greater world powers will get support and money even guns. Until the other side is removed from existance and since it will be an infight no one will care.

Same as iseral they bomb and kill people but no one cares because the palastins dont like us so we join our friends.

The world will learn to get along amd all those that dont agree will adventually disappear.

So again, what does that have to do with Belgium or Paris? What does this have to do with shooting a local kid on a beach in Ivory Coast? How about executing some Egyptian (Christian) construction workers you find in Libya? This should be interesting.

Again, you do know there was terrorism in the region before Iroquois joined with the British against the French and Hurons right?

 gorgon wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have a counter proposal, give them what they want, a full scale war, we should treat these people like we treated the nazis and systematically wipe them out, then make sure they know for generations to come, don't feth with Europe.

Well, if "those people" (meaning the terrorists, I hope, and not a broader group) could only be convinced to leave the communities of innocents surrounding them and stand in orderly rows in fields to be carpet bombed, that might be an option.

So far they seem unwilling.

No I mean every single person that supports them, everyone, start where the money is and work our way down, that means the Saudis, Americans, British, French German etc. Organisations that support this kind of tactic, and dismantle them by force if necessary, yes this would lead to a massive global upheaval, but the alternative is death by a thousand cuts.

I'm just sick of appeasement and half measures, we should have gone at isis like a god damn sledge hammer.

 CptJake wrote:
Obviously we need more than a pure military response.

Having said that, listening to the radio while taking Daughter to school, one guy opined 'The moderate Muslims are terrified of us, terrified we'll over react'. I submit they are not terrified enough to clean up their own mess, not terrified enough that they push their religious leaders to implement the type of reform Christianity went through, not terrified enough that they quit funding (zakat) and otherwise supporting (even if through inaction) the radical elements in their neighborhoods.

If I recall, the process in the West took centuries and was a pretty bloody business as well.

I really am perplexed lately by this "Moderates clean-up" line of argument. It really isn't that easy, because guess what; the extremists are always willing to go further than any moderate is. Once the Moderates can go just as far as the extremists, they are no longer moderates. CPTJake, I hope you can explain it to me, because I am unsure how it is supposed to work. I would really like it too, but I am unsure how it does.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Do you need to be personally under fire to get angry about someone slaughtering American citizens? 9/11 was easily accepted by the public as a pretense for attacking two countries, so I guess people get upset when their tribe gets attacked even if they're not directly involved. Now try to imagine how that ends up working when you do a 9/11 every day for 40 years. When entire nations fall into ruin because you want cheap oil or because your president's friend in Lockheed Martin wants to make a few extra billion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Terrorism" was a thing in every region. It's not a thing in the west anymore because we have built a society where life is worth living. The US is actively preventing the middle east from doing the same.

Wait what does any of that have to do with them murdering their own people mass cruelty to women or throwing gays off of roves.... Americans being mean did that to them? They do not value life as much as you think, the top guys get richer and get people to slaughter those they dont like. Left alone it could become a true genocide like they did to those people in the mountains. No one made them do that to their own people.