This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Very tempting to bomb them back into the Stone Age but that hasn't been too smart a strategy over the last thirty years.
I think there's a good case for doing the research; discovering exactly who they are and annihilating their entire family line.
That way word gets round that if you do that sort of thing, your family will pay for it personally.
Bit extreme maybe, but you have to find a way that makes attacking the innocent via bombing or that incident on Westminster Bridge, unthinkable. Because the consequences will affect generations.
I think there's a good case for doing the research; discovering exactly who they are and annihilating their entire family line.
That way word gets round that if you do that sort of thing, your family will pay for it personally.
Bit extreme maybe, but you have to find a way that makes attacking the innocent via bombing or that incident on Westminster Bridge, unthinkable. Because the consequences will affect generations.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: So by your own logic you are for bombing families in Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Australia, and even the U.S? By your own logic you would end up killing people in ally countries and even your own country. Thinking apparently isn't your strong suit.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: That's not what I said at all.
That's the strategy the U.S and allies have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And as I said, it hasn't proven to be very successful. So you need a different strategy.
That's the strategy the U.S and allies have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And as I said, it hasn't proven to be very successful. So you need a different strategy.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: Yes I responded to your comment about 'killing their family members' you dolt. Not surprising your retarded ass lacks reading comprehension. The logical consequence of what you suggested is killing people in ally countries and even your own since ISIS jihadist come from all across the globe.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Ok that's twice you've insulted me inside two comments.
Neither of which made a lot of sense.
What the hell has allied countries to do with it ?
And even if they were from allied countries, so what ?
You can't keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result because it clearly doesn't work and people are still being murdered for nothing.
Neither of which made a lot of sense.
What the hell has allied countries to do with it ?
And even if they were from allied countries, so what ?
You can't keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result because it clearly doesn't work and people are still being murdered for nothing.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: You must be a village idiot over there on that miserable island of yours. I insult you constantly because your idiocy is dumbfounding. Your solution for stopping innocent people from being murdered is to murder innocent people. Do you also propose that people put out fires by creating more fires? Laws aren't created in a vacuum; every law sets a precedent for future laws. If you hold relatives accountable for the terrorist acts of someone, you eventually do so for other crimes as well. Should the relatives of a murder also get lethal injection? Should the relatives of a burglar also be sentenced to prison?
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: you truly are a retard aren't you ?
NO. Just the immediate family of terrorists.
Which was the original question.
NO. Just the immediate family of terrorists.
Which was the original question.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: Except that's not how reality works you blithering idiot. You like I live within a legal system based on stare decisis. If you murder family members for the terrorist acts of a relative, regardless of whether they actually support their decision, you set the precendent for punishing family members for the crimes of any relative. What you are proposing is in itself terrorism. You're so fucking retarded that you don't understand that you are proposing committing terrorism to prevent terrorism. How about we start by killing you off to improve the gene pool.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: And again with the insults.
All this stuff you come out with is your imagined outcome. No basis in reality whatsoever.
Of course it's a form of terrorism ! Of course it's not good to kill innocents. THAT'S the point !
Once word starts to get round that you'll stop at NOTHING to find the guilty, how much longer will Saudi Arabia keep hiding terrorist groups ? How much longer would Iran train or fund them ? The point is you make it inconceivable that anyone would dare try !
All this stuff you come out with is your imagined outcome. No basis in reality whatsoever.
Of course it's a form of terrorism ! Of course it's not good to kill innocents. THAT'S the point !
Once word starts to get round that you'll stop at NOTHING to find the guilty, how much longer will Saudi Arabia keep hiding terrorist groups ? How much longer would Iran train or fund them ? The point is you make it inconceivable that anyone would dare try !
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: Even if what you were saying wasn't completely immoral, it wouldn't work anyway. The vast majority of terrorist don't survive their attack. Murdering the relatives of a suicide bomber won't deter that suicide bomber because he's already acted you moron. They don't care about their families anyway; their loyalty reserved to whatever fucked up terrorist organization they decided to join.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: And there is no 'you'll' in this. My interests are different from yours. My assessment is based on historical facts. Even Theresa May wouldn't take your delusional childish fantasy seriously.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: Yet again with the insults.
How many murders would you tolerate then ?
How many 9/11 or Westminster Bridge episodes do you need before realising that maybe you have to think differently ?
How many murders would you tolerate then ?
How many 9/11 or Westminster Bridge episodes do you need before realising that maybe you have to think differently ?
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2: Funny that you should mention 9/11 when 15/19 terrorists were Saudi subjects several of whom were housed by Saudi royalty living in the U.S. who conveniently left the country after the twin towers collapsed. If the U.S. and U.K. stopped selling weapons to Riyadh and imposed an import ban on Saudi oil (or at least imported more oil from Canada) you would be amazed by the drop in funding for terrorist activities and consequently the drop in terrorist attacks. ISIS coffers would practically dry up.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
It also wouldn't hurt if the U.K. imposed a refugee and immigration moratorium on the seven countries Trump has proposed to ban travel from plus Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and of course Saudi Arabia. And unlike you I can actually point to representatives and senators that support the policies I have proposed.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: When it comes to the Middle East three things you really have to do.
1. Stop supporting Israel implicitly.
They're as guilty of all kinds of violations but never get heat for it !
2. Confront Saudi Arabia on it's appalling treatment of many of it's own; it continual use as a base for terrorist groups; and the Saudi refusal to do anything about it.
3. If you want to invade a nation, Iran is where you need to go since they are the ones who started this whole business way back in the 70's with the ascendency of the Ayatollahs. They continue to fund and train terrorism. Yet other than Carter's failed bid to sort foreign policy back in '78. I don't think any U.S President has thought of going back since.
1. Stop supporting Israel implicitly.
They're as guilty of all kinds of violations but never get heat for it !
2. Confront Saudi Arabia on it's appalling treatment of many of it's own; it continual use as a base for terrorist groups; and the Saudi refusal to do anything about it.
3. If you want to invade a nation, Iran is where you need to go since they are the ones who started this whole business way back in the 70's with the ascendency of the Ayatollahs. They continue to fund and train terrorism. Yet other than Carter's failed bid to sort foreign policy back in '78. I don't think any U.S President has thought of going back since.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
1. The U.S. already supports Israel explicitly through billions in foreign aid and kowtowing during election season. That's not gonna end anytime soon.
2. You can condemn Saudi Arabia all you want, but unless you impose actual sanctions against them they won't change their behavior. But that, like the aforementioned policy changes won't happen anytime soon.
3. I have no interest invading another nation, especially one where the entire citizenry hates your country. That would just be another bottomless money pit like Iraq and Afghanistan. The problems in these near east countries are cultural. As long as you have populations that believe in sharia and the totalitarian ideology of islam you'll never have anything close to 'freedom and democracy' or an end to terrorism. No amount of central planning can fix those cultural problems. Iraq is still a repressive third world shit hole 14 years after Sadam was toppled, and it's no wonder. 91% of Iraqis support sharia. Libya is now controlled by competing war lords and became a safe haven for ISIS after the Gaddafi.
2. You can condemn Saudi Arabia all you want, but unless you impose actual sanctions against them they won't change their behavior. But that, like the aforementioned policy changes won't happen anytime soon.
3. I have no interest invading another nation, especially one where the entire citizenry hates your country. That would just be another bottomless money pit like Iraq and Afghanistan. The problems in these near east countries are cultural. As long as you have populations that believe in sharia and the totalitarian ideology of islam you'll never have anything close to 'freedom and democracy' or an end to terrorism. No amount of central planning can fix those cultural problems. Iraq is still a repressive third world shit hole 14 years after Sadam was toppled, and it's no wonder. 91% of Iraqis support sharia. Libya is now controlled by competing war lords and became a safe haven for ISIS after the Gaddafi.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@animusinvictus: why do you never read, just respond ? I swear this is why the world gets so bloody frustrated with America.
animusinvictus · 31-35, M
I responded to your three points with three points of my own and that is pretty evident from my comment.