The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I really don't see a true cease fire happening because it doesn't benefit us, nor the Taliban. I'm not sure how we can afford to spend money on aid though. We're already well beyond our capacity so it's either spend money for aid, or continue killing off terrorists and I'm all for the latter.

That doesn't make any sense. Not because I think that there are actualy some muslims that don't deserve to die (hint: there are), but merely because aiding people is a lot cheaper than shooting them - and much more effective.

Originally posted by Borbarad
That doesn't make any sense. Not because I think that there are actualy some muslims that don't deserve to die (hint: there are), but merely because aiding people is a lot cheaper than shooting them - and much more effective.

Not if extremist groups like the Taliban disrupt aid from the West, which they would do. That's pretty much why we're trying to complete A before we move on to B.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Not if extremist groups like the Taliban disrupt aid from the West, which they would do. That's pretty much why we're trying to complete A before we move on to B.

So they are going to "disrupt" aid for millions of people? Are they going to hide food for millions of people away or intercept the transport, which could deliver the stuff right to the people who need it. I'd love to see a nice cover up story from a terrorist for doing something like that (not that they actually could do it). They have to maintain the illusion that they do care more about the people than the "West" does, otherwise they can't get new recruits. It's really that easy.

If you try to shoot all terrorists first, the result are just more terrorists that need to be shot later, because they happily recruit anybody that feels to be left behind by the "West". And even if you can kill them all (and let's be honest: there is no way to archive this task), you'll just get a new generation of people that hate your country and would die to fight it. I don't see how this solves problems, but maybe you can tell me how that works and why the "War on Terrorism" should be more successful than the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs", which both pretty much resulted in the initial problem becoming worse.

Originally posted by Borbarad
So they are going to "disrupt" aid for millions of people? Are they going to hide food for millions of people away or intercept the transport, which could deliver the stuff right to the people who need it. I'd love to see a nice cover up story from a terrorist for doing something like that (not that they actually could do it). They have to maintain the illusion that they do care more about the people than the "West" does, otherwise they can't get new recruits. It's really that easy.

If you try to shoot all terrorists first, the result are just more terrorists that need to be shot later, because they happily recruit anybody that feels to be left behind by the "West". And even if you can kill them all (and let's be honest: there is no way to archive this task), you'll just get a new generation of people that hate your country and would die to fight it. I don't see how this solves problems, but maybe you can tell me how that works and why the "War on Terrorism" should be more successful than the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs", which both pretty much resulted in the initial problem becoming worse.

Because if we ignore the War on Terrorism, the suicide bombings will increase. I understand the need for aid but it would be counterproductive if you even have 1-2 suicide bombings a week. Aiding those people will not reduce the amount of recruits for these terrorist organizations.

I disagree. What we're doing now is being a massive superpower coming in and killing their people. These are peoples family, their brothers and fathers and I think this could well be why they can so easily get recruits. If you kill one, you end up with a pissed off brother who just replaces him. Maybe if we focused more on non-violent ways of helping them it would cease to be a a war in which people feel its their duty to fight in and more of genuine peace effort. As Sun Tzu said, make your enemies not want to fight and you will win.

Or maybe we'll just be sending them more doctors to butcher and more space to regroup.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I disagree. What we're doing now is being a massive superpower coming in and killing their people. These are peoples family, their brothers and fathers and I think this could well be why they can so easily get recruits. If you kill one, you end up with a pissed off brother who just replaces him. Maybe if we focused more on non-violent ways of helping them it would cease to be a a war in which people feel its their duty to fight in and more of genuine peace effort. As Sun Tzu said, make your enemies[b] not want to fight and you will win.

Or maybe we'll just be sending them more doctors to butcher and more space to regroup. [/B]

And if we do nothing, the situation will continue to deteriorate while the number of recruits rises significantly.

I didn't say do nothing, just focus more on winning over and helping the people rather than killing the enemy.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And if we do nothing, the situation will continue to deteriorate while the number of recruits rises significantly.

If we did nothing, and the situation then deteriorated, their image to the public would then look like shit, instead of ours.

The Taliban would allow the public's image of them to be used against them? I think not.

Originally posted by Nephthys

Or maybe we'll just be sending them more doctors to butcher and more space to regroup.

this is what we will be doing... They beheaded a 7 year old boy the other day for "spying" I kid you not.

They also had a couple publicly stoned for eloping after the woman had been promised to someone else besides the man she was in love with.

Sick bastards.

And they get away with those things because we do worse things.

They beheaded a 7 year old boy and stoned a couple to death. One of our attack choppers (Or maybe it was an AC-130, can't remember), slaughtered a camera man and his entire crew with 50. cal bursts, and then when civilians appeared to help those that were still living, we blew them up to, also with 50. cals. None of them were terrorists, none of them had guns, they were journalists. 12 people dead. Aside from that, we frequently kill innocents on accident all the time either in firefights, or by blowing up their houses. And it's for a number of reasons, usually it's not on purpose, it can come down to bad intel or even just panic. But do you think they care if it's an accident? "Yeah you just killed half my family while trying to get 1 terrorist, but hey it was an accident so we're good". No... for every horrible act the Taliban do to the public on purpose, we do it on a grander scale on accident (and sometimes on purpose), which just fuels the fires. The message the Taliban puts out to the public is "We have harsh, traditional laws. But we're doing it to push those white devils out of your homes and to prevent them from touching your women and killing your children." Our message is "If you look suspicious we will blow you up on instinct, and if you are brown then you look suspicious." Not a good situation for us.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And they get away with those things because we do worse things.

They beheaded a 7 year old boy and stoned a couple to death. One of our attack choppers (Or maybe it was an AC-130, can't remember), slaughtered a camera man and his entire crew with 50. cal bursts, and then when civilians appeared to help those that were still living, we blew them up to, also with 50. cals. None of them were terrorists, none of them had guns, they were journalists. 12 people dead. Aside from that, we frequently kill innocents on accident all the time either in firefights, or by blowing up their houses. And it's for a number of reasons, usually it's not on purpose, it can come down to bad intel or even just panic. But do you think they care if it's an accident? "Yeah you just killed half my family while trying to get 1 terrorist, but hey it was an accident so we're good". No... for every horrible act the Taliban do to the public on purpose, we do it on a grander scale on accident (and sometimes on purpose), which just fuels the fires. [/B]

I reiterate my previous statement. This load of shit makes me wonder if you have any kind of grasp of reality.

No Sexy, I'm right and you're wrong.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No Sexy, I'm right and you're wrong.

Yea, I'm sure someone will take you seriously when you say "everything they've done, we've done worse!!!"

You're an idiot.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And they get away with those things because we do worse things.

They do. They also use us as a scapegoat for doing it, and they get away with it because the public buys it. Not saying they haven't been doing it since forever, what I'm saying is that we compound the problem, not fix it.

How would you have it fixed?

Your only example was the attack helicopter example. That one is pretty widely publicized. You underestimate sexy and myself if you think we don't already know abut that.

Your other accusations were pretty general though.

Have you CHECKED our rules of engagement recently? To call our troops irresponsible with THOSE rules of engagement is simply irresponsible in and of itself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How would you have it fixed?

I do wonder though, for those of you who support the war on terror, I'm mostly looking at Sexy here since I think I've got a clear idea of his stance, do you think we will succeed in our objective, by going about it in the way we are now? If not, then what would you do to make it work?