Are we not gonna discuss this newest plane crash?

What is the significance of the pilgrimage to Mecca, anyway?
And why the prayers to Mecca?
Perhaps Mecca is exactly the spot to begin the destruction.

 

Anyone remember the shitstorm that erupted when we bombed Qaddafi's house? Me neither.

 

I seem to recall that after the destruction of Mecca the last imam arises. Might be confused on that but if not it is a good test of Islam being correct

 

Damn, you're right. They should just bomb the house of the president of Islam. Same concept.

 

The Canuckistanians already burned down the White House once...

 

I was gonna do it again but my wife said no...

 

We are in a constant flux when it comes to conducting shooting wars. Every war is a bit different than the last one and we have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to win or we need to stand down and not get involved in the first place. That is however, not possible when an enemy brings the war to you. As it is we've been trying to pacify everyone by putting impossible rules of engagement on our forces and seemingly doing everything possible not to offend anyone. If we are to stop this idiotic movement of religious zealots we will have to change our tactics. So far we've not had any success with pacifying actions and the stakes are far too high to fail. Find those that enable terrorism (militant mosques, etc.) and blow the hell out of them then tell those governments that complain to piss off.

Yeah, I'm a hard ass.

 

Those were the only two cities we nuked, not flattened. We utterly destroyed just about every other Japanese city through conventional firebombings. Even if we'd had more nukes, we were running out of targets.

The atomic bombings didn't much impress the Japanese hierarchy. The nuttier ones even tried to stage a coup against the emperor to stop him from surrendering. It was mostly the entry of th Soviets that brought some sense to them. Better to be conquered by Americans than fucking Russians. Not that I give a shit that we nuked them. The Japs got everything they wanted and then some. The total crushing of your society is the inevitable result of picking a fight with a nation with 10x your industrial capacity and multiple times your population. Economics can't be denied.

As for blasting our enemies to kingdom come, I'm completely in favor of the concept. Modern terrorists are a nebulous assortment of groups but they wouldn't survive without state assistance. When we find out that a state has supported an organization that perpetrated some horrible act against us, we should punish them and use them as an object lesson by completely crushing their society under out boots. Even with only conventional arms we could utterly destroy any country on this planet save for Russia and China.

 

The solution is in following the money. You just need to cut those balls off.



...or is that coming off as too anti-capitalist?.....

 

Are you posting while drunk? Not that I have a problem with that, as long as your alcohol of choice was produced in a sustainable ecosystem by economically empowered labourers who receive generous bathroom breaks in the facility that best matches their gender identity.

 

Nicely worded vindication, are you ALSO a frustrated teetotaler?....

 

Surely you knew what direction this idea was fated to take? Bombing our own capitol is a little over the top, even for a man of many phobias such as I. Besides, where would President Trump live?

 

I am all for drunken debauchery when the circumstances warrant.

 

here's the one problem with that. in 99.9% of all cases, you're looking at that particular situation thru sugar coated lenses from 1000 miles away. when you say state assistance... its not like Saudi Arabia is writing a tax deductible check to the charitable foundation of ISIS.

it MAY be the case, that the king's wife's 3rd cousin's nephew, has a stake in the state run oil business, and funnels a portion of his income thru 15 shell corporations, that end up donating a portion of funds to a mosque, which is part of a charity, that's a front for financial funneling of funding to an intermediary, who has ties to an international arms dealer, who brokers shady cargo ships with buy-offs, that falsify documents to get some guns into a port where customs officials are on the take, that also funnel payoffs to a border crossing guard who allows that truck convoy to cross thru Turkey into northern Syria...

but soooooo... what you're proposing SOUNDS reasonable, and most people who follow geopolitics even at a moderate level would probably agree with you that its happening, but then... having reasonably clear cut evidence becomes a big problem. now, how much you or the State Dept. cares, probably depends on the international relationship. we hate them, have no use for them... evidence/the lie could probably be pretty shallow and nobody would care. they're powerful, we need the relationship strategically, their resources are important... evidence would have to be overwhelming. hence... Shia countries are on the shit list, while Saudi and other hardline Sunni countries are our "partners in the war on terror" while most likely being the biggest offenders by far.

one man's terrorist is another man's hero... the older i get the more i try to keep this in mind. hezbollah, iran, saudi, taliban, AQ, etc etc... forever. a good "hmph... interesting" came to me recently from watching a documentary of Vietnam from the north Vietnamese perspective. i think you need to be careful as well as to not get stuck in a vacuum where you look at one example by itself, instead of the entire web of inter-connectivity that has to be balanced. its easy to say "Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism." but so then what? you give up a key economic partnership that will have ripple effects thru our whole economy? you give up a geographically strategic ally where we have bases? you piss off 10 other countries who are THEIR allies that we would then lose? you inject other global powers into a conflict because of this? it ain't that simple as "so then we should bomb them."

so i bring that up as in to say... your knee jerk reaction to go kill a bunch of people and puff up your chest, on the surface seems kinda plausible, but underneath seems kinda ridiculous. which then puts us in our current conundrum i guess, but also leaves me with, "i don't agree."

 

Interesting post though I would go further. We need to stop calling stuff terrorism. Terrorism is merely at tactic that has been used throughout history including our own Revolution.

Until then we will not get at the root which is Islamism. Both major sects have those within it that think religion should rule government and no other religion (or lack of) should be tolerated, thus the carnage they spread (sometimes using terror as a tactic). Until this is addressed at the level by either them winning (and all non-Muslims enslaved) or them accepting change to tolerance there will be no peace. Just as in the IRA terrorists in England, the under lying issue was the fix not the tactic the IRA used.

 

agreed with mongo, and to sheep...

well... i wouldn't give much hope to that any time soon. the past 100 years of historical involvement with the West has been... nation shaping and manipulation, forced regime change (often at against the benefit of the people and TO the benefit of purely our economic interest), stoked fires of divisiveness purposely, broken or empty promises, and of the more recent decades... collateral killing of innocent bystanders. all that stuff adds up to a bunch of a combination of: depressed economic opportunity, ethnic/religious discrimination, partisanship of rule, self-segregation of communities, and outward resentment/anger... add in to the mix an idea of religious hope/salvation and a way to point all those frustrations either at another "tribe" or "the West"... and you have our current recipe. continuous war and strife will do that to a person. breaking that cycle however, is probably not something the US is even interested in doing, so until then, i wouldn't expect that to change.

 

Interestingly enough, I agree with your assessment. We here in the US have always been on the side of self preservation and elevation starting about the time we became a nation. The native Americans were the first to feel our "needs" (if you will) when almost every treaty that we made with them was broken just as soon as it became "necessary" for us to do so. The middle East has not been forgotten in our zeal to further our "needs." We were conning them out of oil before they even knew what it really was. It appears that they've learned a thing or two and the good times for us are over. Some of them may be nuttier than an overly religious fruit cake but they do have a purpose in mind.

 

Since we're complaining about names attached to certain groups, anyone come up with a term for those who support these terrorist savages??? I ask only cuz they appear to also be a very large number.

 

Yes, they are called "Saudis"

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/sau..._u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_nation/