Page 1 of 2
#1
I get what most armed forces are doing trying to keep the peace, but why is the US's primary goal to capture Bin Laden. What will this achieve? The people commiting these acts of terror aren't taking orders from him, he's just the figure head of this fundamental group. With him gone what will they do... um... carry on i guess.

And.. to add to this rant, which is what it's turning into, they have very good sources of info telling them that Bin Laden is in Pakistan, but they're allies so they won't invade.


Any comments, sorry i went on a bit, my original idea was different but ooh well.
He who knows all, knows nothing in the eye of a imbecile.
#2
It's not their primary goal right?
And what is more, there's been a bloody purple nose and some bloody purple clothes that were messing up the lobby floor. It's just apartment house rules so all you 'partment fools remember : one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
#5
Quote by AlienMetalhead
I get what most armed forces are doing trying to keep the peace, but why is the US's primary goal to capture Bin Laden. What will this achieve? The people commiting these acts of terror aren't taking orders from him, he's just the figure head of this fundamental group. With him gone what will they do... um... carry on i guess.

And.. to add to this rant, which is what it's turning into, they have very good sources of info telling them that Bin Laden is in Pakistan, but they're allies so they won't invade.


Any comments, sorry i went on a bit, my original idea was different but ooh well.


It's a PR move. What a majority of Americans don't understand is that to cut off terrorism - you have to put them in a position which makes it harder to operate - i.e. cut off funds, convert their safe havens to freedom and force them to find it harder and harder to complete their objects. That's why the war in Iraq was so critical in it's move to reduce terrorist's ability to organize/train and prepare attacks.

The moronic element of society doesn't understand that
#7
the primary goal is to get rid of threats to the U.S...most people believe the retarded media and get all mad at ****
#10
my memory is a little fuzzy but wasnt bin laden on some tapes we found that were connected to the 9/11 incidents?
Quote by fallenangel20

And thanks MotleyCrueSATD, that was pretty awesome.


Quote by hemi-san
the truth he speaks well, harken unto his word.
#11
Quote by .:st.anger:.
It's a PR move. What a majority of Americans don't understand is that to cut off terrorism - you have to put them in a position which makes it harder to operate - i.e. cut off funds, convert their safe havens to freedom and force them to find it harder and harder to complete their objects. That's why the war in Iraq was so critical in it's move to reduce terrorist's ability to organize/train and prepare attacks.

The moronic element of society doesn't understand that


The war in Iraq has virtually nothing to due with terrorism. The reason we've remained is to stabilize a potential democracy on the brink of civil war.

In regards to "cutting off" terrorism, whatever we're doing already works, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
#14
i thought the main goal to was acheive peace in a war torn country

,--.-'-,--.
\ /-~-\ /
/ )' a a `( \
( ( ,---. ) )
THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A PIG
\ `(_o_o_)' /
\ `-' /
| |---| |
[_] [_]
#15
Quote by OCDeity

In regards to "cutting off" terrorism, whatever we're doing already works, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

First off...who? I'm sorry I thought our main goal was capturing that terrorist Saddam Hussein. We had Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there were civilians in the area and because of the BS rules of war we couldn't bomb the **** out of the mountains.

Now to the "we haven't been attacked since" argument, I guess Clinton was one of our greatest presidents since we weren't attacked since the first WTC bombing. And how about our allies, Madrid train bombings? London bombings? yea, its only a matter of time before they come here again, 9/11 was over 20 years in the making so I would think it would take at least that to attack us again. Unless we beef up border security and crack down on visas, its only a matter of time before it happens again.
#17
Quote by OCDeity
The war in Iraq has virtually nothing to due with terrorism. The reason we've remained is to stabilize a potential democracy on the brink of civil war.

In regards to "cutting off" terrorism, whatever we're doing already works, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.


You think that is working? London was attacked since then. It may not be New York, but since America and the UK were working together in this war, I'd count that as an attack. Same terrorist groups, different location.

Quote by local axe men
if this is a war on terrorism, when will we invade northern ireland


Piss off.

Northern Ireland never decided to attack America, and it was an internal situation. There are also no terrorist attacks here for almost a decade now, with the Omagh bomb being the last major attack, and it was a decade ago back in August.
#18
Quote by in2thesun88
First off...who? I'm sorry I thought our main goal was capturing that terrorist Saddam Hussein. We had Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there were civilians in the area and because of the BS rules of war we couldn't bomb the **** out of the mountains.

Now to the "we haven't been attacked since" argument, I guess Clinton was one of our greatest presidents since we weren't attacked since the first WTC bombing. And how about our allies, Madrid train bombings? London bombings? yea, its only a matter of time before they come here again, 9/11 was over 20 years in the making so I would think it would take at least that to attack us again. Unless we beef up border security and crack down on visas, its only a matter of time before it happens again.



I can't even tell if you were for, or against my statements.
#19
Quote by tyronelab
You think that is working? London was attacked since then. It may not be New York, but since America and the UK were working together in this war, I'd count that as an attack. Same terrorist groups, different location.


Really? Same groups?

Care to elaborate, or did you just hear that on the news?
#20
Their main goal is to eliminate the taliban from the region as they are harbouring al qaeda.

Bin Laden is not their main goal.
#21
Quote by OCDeity
I can't even tell if you were for, or against my statements.

I was trying to point out that I have never heard anyone credit Clinton for not being attacked since the WTC bombing early in his presidency, I am opposed to your statements, that is why I said that our allies have been attacked, it may not be us, but they are still countries that are fighting for the same thing we are.
#22
Quote by .:st.anger:.
It's a PR move. What a majority of Americans don't understand is that to cut off terrorism - you have to put them in a position which makes it harder to operate - i.e. cut off funds, convert their safe havens to freedom and force them to find it harder and harder to complete their objects. That's why the war in Iraq was so critical in it's move to reduce terrorist's ability to organize/train and prepare attacks.

The moronic element of society doesn't understand that


THANK YOU!

Though I believe that part of what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is meddling. We overthrew a dictator that the majority of Iraq disliked, then we tried to influence how the new government would be run, which is what pissed the people off.

I also find it quite possible that Osama Bin Laden is living in an American suburb. Imagine, we're spending billions of dollars looking for him in Afghanistan, but all the while he could be right under our noses. Though I'm sure this isn't very probable.
#23
Quote by in2thesun88
I was trying to point out that I have never heard anyone credit Clinton for not being attacked since the WTC bombing early in his presidency, I am opposed to your statements, that is why I said that our allies have been attacked, it may not be us, but they are still countries that are fighting for the same thing we are.


You can't really credit someone for not being attacked. You wouldn't congragulate someone for not getting attacked on a turn of Risk.

I am aware our allies have been attacked, however these have been relatively minor incidents with no legitmate connections to the attacks on us. It is purely speculation.
#24
urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate urlate

INTOLERANCE IS IGNORANCE


Quote by kosmic
Holy Moses.
haha
#25
Quote by OCDeity
The war in Iraq has virtually nothing to due with terrorism. The reason we've remained is to stabilize a potential democracy on the brink of civil war.

In regards to "cutting off" terrorism, whatever we're doing already works, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.


That is brilliantly retarded
There has been case after case of terrorist attacks throughout the world since 9/11
And many cases of terrorism being prevented by thorough policing on a day to day basis (my mum's a police officer in a relevant department, I hear enough about this from her and her colleagues to know it's true)

Quote by OCDeity
You can't really credit someone for not being attacked. You wouldn't congragulate someone for not getting attacked on a turn of Risk.

I am aware our allies have been attacked, however these have been relatively minor incidents with no legitmate connections to the attacks on us. It is purely speculation.


Minor?
Are you sure you're allowed on the computer at all? I normally try to keep halfwits away from complicated electrical equipment...


EDIT
For the record, as much as people may say 'The War in Iraq was for oil' or 'did nothing good for us'
You can't claim that because you don't know what this world would've been like without the war in Iraq
I'm not supporting it, although I do believe it was a war that had to happen, even if the reasoning was flawed and in some cases straight up false, we were always going to end up going to war with Iraq, and I expect it would always have ended up the way it has no.
But anyone neigh-saying the war, you can't say much since you're commenting on the advantages of a non-scenario, not to say things happen for a reason, but either way there would be good and bad points...
Last edited by tushmeister at Jan 14, 2009,
#26
Quote by OCDeity

In regards to "cutting off" terrorism, whatever we're doing already works, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.


That's kind of like saying the can of rhino repellent on my shelf must be working, becaue no rhinos have busted into my office to attack me isn't it?
#27
Quote by dullsilver_mike
That's kind of like saying the can of rhino repellent on my shelf must be working, becaue no rhinos have busted into my office to attack me isn't it?


Exactly!
He's commenting on a non-event, and using it as evidence for something which is absurd
#28
I knew someone would jump on the "minor" thing. When I say relatively, I am referring to the 9/11 attacks.

And when I say "whatever we're doing is working," I say it tongue-in-cheek, kind of like the rhino example. You may think it's stupid to let my guard down, but I think it's stupider to constantly worry about rhinos attacking your office. Get it?
#29
Quote by OCDeity
I knew someone would jump on the "minor" thing. When I say relatively, I am referring to the 9/11 attacks.

And when I say "whatever we're doing is working," I say it tongue-in-cheek, kind of like the rhino example. You may think it's stupid to let my guard down, but I think it's stupider to constantly worry about rhinos attacking your office. Get it?


They weren't minor relative to those though
When it came to the planning involved, and the direct threat on peoples lives, smaller numbers doesn't necessarily make for a minor or relatively minor attack, terrorism should be measured by how much terror the attacks cause, and the attacks on London at least caused considerable worry among the British, who have a history of being a bit more stalwart than the Americans by any measure...
#30
Quote by tushmeister
terrorism should be measured by how much terror the attacks cause


Ha. Now who's brilliantly retarded?

Don't even attempt to explain the concept of terrorism. It is a stupid, misguided term in the first place. Now everything is construed as terrorism - there's no actual definition of it. Hell, look at the first sentence of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

What the hell makes you think your idea is what counts?
#31
Quote by OCDeity
I knew someone would jump on the "minor" thing. When I say relatively, I am referring to the 9/11 attacks.

And when I say "whatever we're doing is working," I say it tongue-in-cheek, kind of like the rhino example. You may think it's stupid to let my guard down, but I think it's stupider to constantly worry about rhinos attacking your office. Get it?


Sorry for misinterpretation. Remember, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.
#32
Quote by OCDeity
Ha. Now who's brilliantly retarded?

Don't even attempt to explain the concept of terrorism. It is a stupid, misguided term in the first place. Now everything is construed as terrorism - there's no actual definition of it. Hell, look at the first sentence of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

What the hell makes you think your idea is what counts?


Still you I believe...

I understand that terrorism is a loosely applied term, but no more so than most terms in common use these days, since it's considered a relatively modern phenomena it would make sense it's not well defined, attack that idea all you want but it's recurred throughout the history of languages.

And surely mine's the logical idea, since terror is in the name you'd expect the most objective (or least most suitably subjective) measure would be linked to whether it achieves its goal or not, which is to cause terror?

My idea counts no more than yours, which is a shame really, because it's why the world is often so messed up, everyone has to be so goddamned equal...


EDIT
For the sake of being a smart ass, it's the second sentence you're referring too
Perhaps irrelevant but I don't particularly trust people who can't read properly, not when they're using the written (typed) word to back themselves up...
Last edited by tushmeister at Jan 14, 2009,
#33
Don't forget that the Bin Laden family is EXTREMELY rich, he will be using his wealth to fund the operation. That is one reason to go after him.
#35
Quote by .:st.anger:.
It's a PR move. What a majority of Americans don't understand is that to cut off terrorism - you have to put them in a position which makes it harder to operate - i.e. cut off funds, convert their safe havens to freedom and force them to find it harder and harder to complete their objects. That's why the war in Iraq was so critical in it's move to reduce terrorist's ability to organize/train and prepare attacks.

The moronic element of society doesn't understand that




Labelling anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded, baseless and funadamentally flawed views 'moronic' will only alienate them and drive them further towards zomGZ COMMUNIZM AHHHHH!!!!!!!!1!!onoen elvene!!"21!
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
RED MILITIA FACTION
#36
Also, I read in a lengthy interview with Obama in The Times he said he would invade Pakistan if Taleban forces hide there, so he doesn't regard them as allies, really. But that war could go nuclear, or India could invade from a second from and then that would go nuclear, too.
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
#37
Quote by tushmeister
Still you I believe...

I understand that terrorism is a loosely applied term, but no more so than most terms in common use these days, since it's considered a relatively modern phenomena it would make sense it's not well defined, attack that idea all you want but it's recurred throughout the history of languages.

And surely mine's the logical idea, since terror is in the name you'd expect the most objective (or least most suitably subjective) measure would be linked to whether it achieves its goal or not, which is to cause terror?

My idea counts no more than yours, which is a shame really, because it's why the world is often so messed up, everyone has to be so goddamned equal...


EDIT
For the sake of being a smart ass, it's the second sentence you're referring too
Perhaps irrelevant but I don't particularly trust people who can't read properly, not when they're using the written (typed) word to back themselves up...


It's cute that you think you can grasp the whole concept, that your idea is the "most logical." But the overall point is, just because something is classified as terrorism doesn't mean it's part of a unified plan to destroy the god damn nation.

And in regards to your edit, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. Learn human English.
#38
Quote by local axe men
if this is a war on terrorism, when will we invade northern ireland

There are so many things wrong with that statement.
#39
Quote by tushmeister
That is brilliantly retarded
There has been case after case of terrorist attacks throughout the world since 9/11
And many cases of terrorism being prevented by thorough policing on a day to day basis (my mum's a police officer in a relevant department, I hear enough about this from her and her colleagues to know it's true)


Minor?
Are you sure you're allowed on the computer at all? I normally try to keep halfwits away from complicated electrical equipment...


I agree with this guy, on everything he just said, about OCDeity being a douche and the war.
"Love doesn't exist and I'm not picking on love, because I don't think friendship exists either"


GEAR:
Caparison PLM-3
ESP/LTD Viper 400
Gretch A/E G3700
Soldano SLO 50w clone
#40
Quote by OCDeity
You can't really credit someone for not being attacked. You wouldn't congragulate someone for not getting attacked on a turn of Risk.

I am aware our allies have been attacked, however these have been relatively minor incidents with no legitmate connections to the attacks on us. It is purely speculation.


**** you. Seriously. Do you have no thoughts for those that died in them, and those that were affected by them?
Page 1 of 2