Manchester terror attack- 19 dead, 50 wounded · General Discussion Forum

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, that would not create more terrorists. Your father-in-law is an idiot.

It'd create more people who WANTED to be terrorist, but it'd be a massive deterrent against them actually doing anything.

Originally posted by -Pr-
That or create millions of martyrs. I get that you're joking, but still... That kind of carnage would be messed up.
What really bothers me is that I honestly don't know if something like that is that unlikely anymore. Especially with who's in the white house.

It's the threat that has value, the suggestion isn't to actually follow through with it. See the reason a "cold war" type scenario between us and Islamic extremist is because of the value of martyrdom within the religion. Mutually assured destruction isn't really a deterrent for that reason. But if you threaten to totally destroy the faith BEFORE you eliminate all the opposition it means that martyrdom won't be possible at all for anyone afterwards. It also means that all their family and friends who aren't killed beforehand CAN'T get into Heaven because it'll be literally impossible to follow the tenants of the faith. See the threat isn't just to destroy their favorite city, it's to send all of them to Hell FOREVER regardless of whether or not they win in the end. That has the potential to actually bring about a "cold war" style state of peace due to mutual destruction because we're massively outnumbered by the totality of the Muslims on the planet and will lose the war in the end... but before that happens we take the ONE thing we know for a fact that they'll sacrifice anything for from them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
What if a "radical Muslim" group acquired a nuke and accidentally set it off in Mecca?

World wide chaos would erupt. Mecca actually being annihilated would be horrible for everyone everywhere regardless of who did it.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

Originally posted by darthgoober
It'd create more people who WANTED to be terrorist, but it'd be a massive deterrent against them actually doing anything.

you argue as if the mecca is some terrorist charging station and mother brain that shuts down the drones when you blow it up.

anyway im glad that the UK didnt blow up the vatican when the IRA did all those bombings not long ago. but thats different because raisins.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you argue as if the mecca is some terrorist charging station and mother brain that shuts down the drones when you blow it up.
anyway im glad that the UK didnt blow up the vatican when the IRA did all those bombings not long ago. but thats different because raisins.

I'm in no way suggesting that Mecca is a terrorist charging station nor am I suggesting that it'll cause everyone's brains to shut down. I'm pointing out that it's literally essential to their faith(at least, such is my understanding). Without Mecca, the whole faith goes to Hell.

Blowing up the vatican isn't nearly as strong of a threat to Catholics. Catholics don't have to pray to Vatican City in order to be Catholic.

Flyattractor Senior Member

Its ok for Islamist Nazis to kill us but not for us to kill Islamist Nazis. Gotta love Bashy's spin on things.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

you can pray toward a crater. to think islam would just cancel itself out is just (sorry) ****ing batshit.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you can pray toward a crater. to think islam would just cancel itself out is just (sorry) ****ing batshit.

Again, it's the THREAT that's so powerful. Actualy following through would start a war we'd be guarateed to lose in the end. Yes after the fact they'd be forced to alter the tenants of the faith in ways that will allow Muslims to rally, but to the fanatics that are the real threats at this time a strict adherence to the tenants of the faith as they're currently written is a big deal. I'm not saying that destroying Mecca will "beat the Muslims once and for all", I'm saying that the threat of doing it opens up the door to a path of mutually assured destruction that the Muslims causing the problems will actually care about. They're not scared of death, they are scared of Hell.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

what muslim majority country would have us after we threatened their holy land? "oh, what? iran threatened you? boohoo".

but most blindingly important: the threat would be a hostile act toward a third of the world's population. you're peddling some evil shit, bruh.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what muslim majority country would have us after we threatened their holy land? "oh, what? iran threatened you? boohoo".
but most blindingly important: the threat would be a hostile act toward a third of the world's population. you're peddling some evil shit, bruh.

Hey I specifically said that it's a super extreme measure and wouldn't be my "go to" move. Yes every Muslim on the planet would have issues with us, but it could be somewhat minimized as long as we made it clear(and actually keep the promise) that it's not something we're going to constantly hold over their heads in order to get our way all the time. It's ONLY a threat that applies to attacks directly against us within our own borders. It's not something we're going to use to resolve any conflicts between Muslim nations, it's not something we use to strongarm oil out of them, it's only leverage against extremist carrying out guerrilla war over here against innocent civilians. By the same token the US and Russia still had all kinds of issues during the cold war, but no one actually launched a nuke because both nations would have lost that scenereo.

Like I said before, my own personal prefered deterent is to make it be known that any captured terrorist will be executed by an infidel woman in a way that disqualifies them from Heaven. It won't be a huge deterrent until/unless it happens more than a few times, but the definite possibility of Hell will discourage at least a few from making a plane trip all the way over here to stir up trouble. As it stands the way they see it even if they're executed for being caught they still get their virgins.

Zack M Senior Member

Originally posted by Nibedicus
ISIS gunmen just seized a city around less than 100 miles where I live. They're pulling over ppl and seeing if they're Muslim, beheading any1 that is not and displaying their heads on roadsides. Teachers especially. Place is on lockdown and is a warzone right now. Got friends living close to there, thankfully got tf out soon as they heard about the fighting.

YouTube video

Flyattractor Senior Member

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you can pray toward a crater. to think islam would just cancel itself out is just (sorry) ****ing batshit.

That is something it has in common with Left Wing Politics.

Adam_PoE Senior Member

Originally posted by darthgoober
It'd create more people who WANTED to be terrorist, but it'd be a massive deterrent against them actually doing anything.

Imagine two brothers: one is a good citizen and the other is a criminal.

In order to deter the Bad Brother from committing additional crimes, you threaten both brothers that if he does, you will kill their parents.

The Good Brother has no control over the actions of the Bad Brother, yet he will be punished just the same when the Bad Brother inevitably breaks the law.

The Good Brother is now motivated to stop you by any means necessary to protect his parents, because it is only a matter of time before his brother commits another crime.

He may even decide to join forces with his brother to improve his odds of success.

This is not a case of mutually-assured destruction.

You are making an existential threat, and the Good Brother has everything to lose if he does not act, and nothing to lose if he does.

You are radicalizing people who are otherwise not inclined toward terrorism, and increasing the violent acts you are trying to deter.

It is the stupidest thing someone could suggest.

Flyattractor Senior Member

I say if the Good Brother is GOOD He should take a STANCE against his POS BAD BROTHER!

Sadly the "Good Brothers" dont' do that in this world of ours today.

They just whine and moan and ***** and vote democrat and think that makes a diff.

Idiots.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Imagine two brothers: one is a good citizen and the other is a criminal.
In order to deter the Bad Brother from committing additional crimes, you threaten both brothers that if he does, you will kill their parents.
The Good Brother has no control over the actions of the Bad Brother, yet he will be punished just the same when the Bad Brother inevitably breaks the law.
The Good Brother is now motivated to stop you by any means necessary to protect his parents, because it is only a matter of time before his brother commits another crime.
He may even decide to join forces with his brother to improve his odds of success.
This is not a case of mutually-assured destruction.
You are making an existential threat, and the Good Brother has everything to lose if he does not act, and nothing to lose if he does.
You are radicalizing people who are otherwise not inclined toward terrorism, and increasing the violent acts you are trying to deter.
It is the stupidest thing someone could suggest.

No the "good" brother has zero reasons to actually join the bad brother UNTIL the parents are killed because he still doesn't want them dead. Until they're actually killed he has every reason in the world to try to do everything he can to stop the "bad" brother from acting out up to and including, turning the "bad" brother over to the authorities. The only reason he'd have to sign up with the "bad" brother would be if he loved his criminal brother more than he did his innocent parents.

Surtur Restricted

Originally posted by Silent Master
What if a "radical Muslim" group acquired a nuke and accidentally set it off in Mecca?

#NotAllMuslims

If this happened there would be discussion of banning nukes and people trying increasingly clever ways to not mention Islam.

Kinda like this latest example as some British politicians go out of their way to avoid mentioning the I word here.

Leave it to CNN to stay classy about this:

CNN analyst suggests that Manchester bombing was a right-wing coverup. Outrage follows.

Don't worry it's not just CNN making fools of themselves:

Cosmopolitan caught misrepresenting Sikh man as a Muslim to push liberal narrative

Darth Thor Senior Member

Right this happened in my home town, and we're all just in shock and terror here.

But it's pretty dispocable how you guys are using this to spread an anti-Muslim agenda.

Muslims are by far the biggest victims of terrorist attacks by f***ing Isil.

In fact this just happened this month as well but none of you clearly give a s***:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/30-dead-five-isil-suicide-bombers-attack-refugee-camp-syria/amp/

Surtur Restricted

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Right this happened in my home town, and we're all just in shock and terror here.
But it's pretty dispocable how you guys are using this to spread an anti-Muslim agenda.
Muslims are by far the biggest victims of terrorist attacks by f***ing Isil.
In fact this just happened this month as well but none of you clearly give a s***:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/30-dead-five-isil-suicide-bombers-attack-refugee-camp-syria/amp/

Nobody has said this is all Muslims or that Muslims don't also fall victim to terrorist attacks.

People are tired of hearing about these attacks every other week, they are tired of being told to do nothing but shut up and given condolences.

Out of curiosity, do they bend over backwards to avoid the Islamic aspect of these crimes? Like the link you just posted. Do Syrians avoid the I word when this shit happens?

Darth Thor Senior Member

Or this in Syria last month:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/16/sixty-eight-children-dead-suicide-bombing-syria

68 Children!

Darth Thor Senior Member

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody has said this is all Muslims or that Muslims don't also fall victim to terrorist attacks.

Nobody's mentioned that period.

And it's not that they also fall victim. They are the primary victims.

Originally posted by Surtur
People are tired of hearing about these attacks every other week, they are tired of being told to do nothing but shut up and given condolences.

Well I'm sorry it's aching your ears. But it's actually costing other people their lives and loved ones. And it's causing abuse to a lot of Muslims in the Western world as well.

But I guess it's more important that you're tired of "hearing" it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Out of curiosity, do they bend over backwards to avoid the Islamic aspect of these crimes? Like the link you just posted. Do Syrians avoid the I word when this shit happens?

They're like all Muslims there. So your question makes no sense.

Lestov16 CTU Field Agent

Originally posted by vansonbee
Pretty devastating event and its just as bad as those 49 gays being gun downed last year by Islam inspired attack.
Should we sue the democrats who wanted to shut down the travel ban for our safety or should we give Islam a chance to shower us with their love and compassion for western culture?

Maybe we could sue the Republican president who just gave $110 billion to the world's most powerful radical Islamic theocracy.

Robtard Senor Member

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Right this happened in my home town, and we're all just in shock and terror here.
But it's pretty dispocable how you guys are using this to spread an anti-Muslim agenda.
Muslims are by far the biggest victims of terrorist attacks by f***ing Isil.
In fact this just happened this month as well but none of you clearly give a s***:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/30-dead-five-isil-suicide-bombers-attack-refugee-camp-syria/amp/

They'll use any tragedy to push their personal agenda, they're sad and pathetic.