2
   

VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

 
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2004 10:08 pm
Finn',

Quote:
If life was so meaningless to them when compared with their political and/or religious zeal why is Iran the only Middle Eastern country (and not Arab by the way) to have a popular uprising within the last 50 years?


What about the two Palestinian intifada's?
The Basra uprising in the first gulf war?
The Kurdish uprising?
The Sudan?
Lebanon?
Or do you only count, "successful", uprisings?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2004 10:27 pm
blatham wrote:
I'm unclear, finn, on what evidence you base your claim that the 'hydra' theory is false. That is, if we define it the way it normally is defined.


And how is it normally defined?

I base my argument on common sense and the fact that there is no historical example of an actual manifestation of the Hydra Theory.

Quote:
Terrorist attacks worldwide are up. Terrorist attack in Iraq are WAY up.


This isn't at all surprising. Once we began to go after and capture and kill the terrorists it was expected that they would attempt to strike back harder. I don't think that anyone has every argued that they can be quickly and systematically exterminated like cockroaches.

Perhaps if we didn't take an aggressive approach with them they would not have engaged in as many attacks, but do you believe they would have not engaged in any attacks? And even if they stick to a once a year schedule, a 9/11 every year is a pretty grim picture.

Quote:
The big fist theory (let's call it that) has what precedent examples to back it up? Israel, perhaps?


This is bound to create a stir, but Israel is actually quite restrained in their response to Palestinian terrorism. Their bulldozing of the houses of sucide bombers and assasinations of terrorist group leaders is hardly the equivalent of the hell we let loose on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Instead call it the Hunt Them Down And Capture or Kill Them Theory


The Aesthetic Approach to Strategic Counterterrorist Decision Making

Ami Joseph

Chanan Tigay

December 16, 1996

Counterterrorism combats terrorism through long-term, systematic opposition. This strategy counters violence with violence, and wages war on terrorist organizations by attempting to eliminate them. Counterterrorist strategy must incorporate both reactive and proactive measures to prove successful.

Another approach entails the use of specially trained anti-terror squads. These squads violently break into the terrorists' stronghold with the aim of neutralizing the terrorists and rescuing the hostages. Though this course of action risks the lives of the hostages and the anti-terrorists, it has been successfully implemented by the Israelis (1976) and by the French (1995). The Israeli special forces saved 103 hostages in a raid on the Entebbe Airport where they were being held captive. The Israeli commander and one citizen were killed. Similarly, a French anti-terror squad stormed an Air France jet in January of 1995, rescuing all of the hostages aboard. Only one French officer was injured.

The genesis of counterterrorism is terrorism. As long as terrorism continues to penetrate and disrupt the law and order of a society, that society must learn counterterrorist methods to defend itself against these attacks.


Successful Turkish Counter-terrorism Methods


Quote:
We ought to be ruthless with bad guys. Sure. But how do we spot them? They are of suspicious complexion? Abu Ghraib demonstrates how wrong 'justice' can go when folks get too eager to get them bad guys.


You are mixing arguments. I've not seen evidence that the folks abused at Abu Ghraib were innocent bank tellers or school teachers. The abuse of these men was wrong, but that doesn't mean that they weren't bad guys.

The Turks managed to spot the bad guys in a land where everyone's complexion is about the same.

Mistakes will be made along the way, and so we need to come to terms with this fact. Either we accept that mistakes will be made or we accept that we will never be able to significantly reduce terrorism. I choose the former, but can understand the thinking of those who choose the latter -- I also suspect that their choice would be different if they or a loved one were confronted with the reality of terrorism, but to be fair that argument can be turned on me -- would my choice change if I or a loved one were one of the mistakes.
0 Replies
 
TruthKeeper
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:34 am
Where is the Democracy!
http://www.albasrah.net/images/falluja/

Where is the US democracy In Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Bvamp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 05:57 am
level fallujah. the main terrorist cells there now are flying under that place's name and are being supported there by the locals. i say surround the place, issue a 24 hour warning that all non-combatants leave at once, and then drop a 10 megaton nuclear device on it. wont miss that zarqauwi idiot then, i dont think.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 05:58 am
Right. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Bvamp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:23 am
oh yeh, and if you all here in the US are afraid of terrorists, go buy a damn gun! shoot back next time...
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:36 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:37 am
I think there's something in my eye.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:47 am
It seems to me that the uprisings were completely unexpected by the administration. I doubt they were thinking of hydras or flypaper or anything much beyond securing the oilfieds, finding those WOMD and capturing Hussein.
Hydra or no, these are not Iraqi soldiers killing our guys in suicide attacks. How many of those did we hear about in Iraq before the war? One would think they would have used this tactic on the dreaded Hussein.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 07:03 am
More than likely, those now referred to as insurgents were soldiers before the invasion. Hussein's government was a minority tribal government of Sunni Arabs. When the Marines had Fallujah surrounded and cut off, car bombings in Baghdad dropped to zero. The two Sunni Arabs now in top positions in Iraq will be seen as racial traitors, and very likely the insurgents will continue their attacks.

Bvamp's solution of nuking the place is a typical expression of the dim-witted attitudes held by far too many Americans which will assure that down through the generations to come, we will never lack for fanatical enemies. Fanaticism breeds fanaticism as a response.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 07:47 am
OccamsWillie said
Quote:
Okay; so we agree that there are circumstances that call for temporary reductions in personal freedoms; good! We also agree that abuses that take place during, or because of these reductions need to be dealt with. I seriously doubt your take on punishment is any more stringent than my own so I doubt we'll have a debate over the treatment of those found guilty of crimes either. Precisely how much power the executive office should carry with it is a bit too broad to get into. I don't see an end in sight to such a debate.
What's Slate?

Slate is the news site initially founded by Microsoft and the legal discussion is to be found beginning here... http://slate.msn.com/id/2102895/entry/2102899/

Quote:
Blatham, let me clear this up for you once and for all. I hereby state that it is my opinion that the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib by coalition forces (us) are 100% unacceptable. I am glad charges are being brought and I hope they are able to uncover exactly how high up the chain of command it goes and punish accordingly from top to bottom. I SEE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT COULD JUSTIFY THOSE ABUSES. Anything that Saddam may or may not have done there is in my opinion immaterial and shouldn't and I'm sure won't be brought up during those proceedings. Got it?
In a related issue; I think monsters like Saddam who like to torture people at prisons among other places need to be stopped. I am very glad our forces have stopped him from torturing people at places like Abu Ghraib. I do wonder why some people refuse to recognize this obvious fact while at the same time harping on and on about other, similar abuses that, in reality, pale in comparison. You feelin me yet?

So, bringing up the two different issues in the same breath was not to justify torture by Americans. OK. Instead, it was to point out inconsistency in someone who might rail against torture by Americans but meanwhile not mentioning (nor seeming to care much about) worse atrocities by Hussein.

In other words, you are just restating the human rights justification for the war. Fine, I think that is the only valid moral justification for initiating a war. Unfortunately, I also think that this had almost nothing to do with why the US did procede as it has. Still, your moral argument has strength on its own.

But there's another key point here too. We are each responsible, most primarily, for our own ethical/moral choices, and that extends upwards from ourselves to our communities...because we are most responsible for moral questions/decisions where we might have influence. So, I could not hold you nor I morally responsible for the Salem trials or for Auchwitz. On the other hand, you and I hold a moral responsibility for what our nations do which is of a far greater magnitude than regarding what someone else's nation might do. And this is what differentiates why you or I should shout much louder about the actions of our own governments. Inconsistency, in this instance, is how it ought to be, because our own moral responsibilities are inconsistent or out of balance.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:27 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You have yet to offer a link that established the Flypaper Theory was Administration policy, but, in any case, you've also not explained why you contend it is a nonsensical strategy.

As I mentioned, to the extent that the administration has ever had any theory, it endorsed the "Flypaper Theory." To be sure, it is difficult to determine exactly what the administration's policy might be, but then the Bush administration has never adequately defined its theory for getting into Iraq, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to find that it has not clearly articulated a theory for its continued presence in Iraq. In this respect, we are much like Cold War "Kremlinologists," who minutely examined the facial ticks of the Politburo's membership to determine the true direction of Soviet policy. Yet others who claim a more nuanced insight into presidential entrail-gazing claim that the administration endorsed the "Flypaper Theory." As one explains:
    This is the meaning of Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday, when he was quizzed about the "growing threat to U.S. forces" on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper.
Andrew Sullivan, speaking to "someone close to the inner circles of the Bush administration," further stated:
    And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.


Now, does this necessarily mean that the "Flypaper Theory" was endorsed by the Bush administration? Based on the circumstantial evidence, I would venture to guess that it was, or, at least, it was adopted along with any number of other theories, just as the war itself has been justified seriatim by a bewildering variety of rationales.

As for why it is nonsensical, there is every reason to believe that it simply isn't true. As Bruce Hoffman writes in the latest issue of "Atlantic Monthly:"
    Despite repeated claims from official Washington that a large number of foreign volunteers are converging on Iraq, American military commanders report no indications that this is the case; the most frequently cited figure is around 500, although some estimates put it at 1,000 to 3,000.
The flypaper has been laid out, but, up to the moment, there has been a disconcerting lack of cooperative flies.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Well, we can start with Cyclops' comment on this very thread:

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer: I was not asking for links to statements made by people on this board. I can find them quite easily myself, thank you.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I know you requested only 3, but my cup runneth over, and I'm sure I would have relatively little trouble coming up with another 6.

A brief perusal of your links shows that none of them advocates the kind of definition of "Hydra Theory" that you seem to be attacking. None of them hold strictly to the notion that, for every terrorist killed, a certain number will "spring up." As such, I consider your attack on the "Hydra Theory" to be nothing more than an attack on a theory of your own making (or, perhaps more accurately, a theory devised by you in conjunction with some of the posters on this board). You will excuse me, therefore, if I choose not to join in your assault on a defenseless strawman.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Viet Cong were not fighting America alone, and the number of Islamic terrorists in the world today is almost certainly a fraction of the total of the NVA during the Vietnam War.

That's the best you can do? Really, if you're not going to try to engage my argument head-on, let me know and I won't expend any more effort.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
In any case, it is not a matter of taking comfort, but in recognizing that killing terrorists is not counter-productive as the Hydra Theory would hold.

We can take as little comfort in the notion that, by killing lots of terrorists, we can quickly bring terrorism to an end.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I don't see the kinship at all. The Hydra Theory holds that it is counter-productive to kill terrorists because with each killing two or more new terrorists will take the place of the one killed. This, for all intents and purposes, creates an infinite pool of terrorists.

I will not comment on your characterization of the "Hydra Theory," except to say that it is, at best, a cartoonish distortion.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
This is quite different from the Flypaper Theory which may recognize that, for now, terrorists can recruit new members to replace some of their fallen, but holds that killing so many in one place will not only directly diminish their ranks but eventually retard recruitment.

And, as events have so far shown, this theory does not stand scrutiny.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
The Hydra Theory is certain that there is an inexhaustible number of angry Jihadists who are willing to sacrifice their lives. This is its largest flaw, and it is based on prejudice. The Muslims of the world are not a seething mass of religious fanatics, willing to climb over one another to give up their lives to destroy the infidels. It's the same prejudice that supports tireless, but inevitably incorrect, predictions that the Arab Street is going to explode with each new American provocation.

No comment (see above).

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
If life was so meaningless to them when compared with their political and/or religious zeal why is Iran the only Middle Eastern country (and not Arab by the way) to have a popular uprising within the last 50 years?

Depends on your definition of "popular uprising."

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Of course it doesn't. Who has suggested that it does? Eliminating the existing number of terrorists through killing is not the only required approach in the war against terrorism, but it is a major one.

No doubt.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:31 am
I would add that conflating the Viet Cong with the NVA is either disingenuous or untutored. Either option works well for me.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:03 am
blatham wrote:
OccamsWillie
Laughing Laughing Laughing


"I'm a hell of a lot more upset about this because my people did it!"? Okay. That is reasonable¬Ö and in some ways I even concur. It's a mystery to me why I'd have to drag that out of you? Your pre-trial conviction is where it becomes unreasonable, IMO. If this proves to be a rogue element in our armed services (my opinion) then you will have still done the balance of our service people (and nations) a disservice by characterizing the many by the actions of the few (not unlike Muslims who are unfairly characterized as terrorists). Where as our actions may or may not have been looked past by our leaders, Iraq's were specifically endorsed by Saddam and frequently carried out by his own demented offspring. By not revealing your self centered justification for your self-loathing until it's dragged out of you, you give off the impression of not caring, recognizing or understanding the substantial gap between our tragic mistakes and Saddam's hideous intentional atrocities. Admitting you agree that Saddam's actions were far worse takes no steam away from your opinion that ours were despicable. Contrarily, it lends additional credibility and may even help prevent these side trips into explaining why your arguments sound intellectually dishonest. I'm glad to see we are essentially on the same page here (only orders of importance are reversed). I might also encourage you to consider whether loyalty to your country should really take such precedence over loyalty to your species. Idea
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:15 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
I'm unclear, finn, on what evidence you base your claim that the 'hydra' theory is false. That is, if we define it the way it normally is defined.


And how is it normally defined?
From the greek myth, when one head is cut off, two grow back in its place. In our case, it is the theory that certain actions we might take in the middle east or elsewhere might have, or is likely to have, the consequence of increasing the strength or numbers or determination of the enemy rather having the planned goal of reducing their strength or numbers or determination.

I base my argument on common sense and the fact that there is no historical example of an actual manifestation of the Hydra Theory.
I think you ought to avail yourself of another basis for your argument. Just off the top, we'll note that your President doesn't agree, insisting that anything naughty the terrorists do will only steel our resolve and bring more boots and more bombs and more coalition partners raining down. But let's take Abu Ghraib as the most immediate example. It doesn't seem a common sense instance of desired pacification of the enemy. There seems to me to actually be countless examples of such consequences. Joe mentions Viet Nam, or one might look at Adolf's attempt to cow the Brits with bombs and missles, or the various attempts to eradicate prostitution or drugs by hitting some highly visible source but then driving the perpetrators into multiple and more fabian locations.

Quote:
Terrorist attacks worldwide are up. Terrorist attack in Iraq are WAY up.


This isn't at all surprising. Once we began to go after and capture and kill the terrorists it was expected that they would attempt to strike back harder. I don't think that anyone has every argued that they can be quickly and systematically exterminated like cockroaches.

Perhaps if we didn't take an aggressive approach with them they would not have engaged in as many attacks, but do you believe they would have not engaged in any attacks? And even if they stick to a once a year schedule, a 9/11 every year is a pretty grim picture.
The question isn't whether we ought to have been agressive or not, but rather how we might have directed our agressive attempts. As Richard Clarke and many others have suggested, a number of very large and very stupid mistakes have been made, all of which have contributed to increased hatred by the general muslim world towards the US and to an even more fertile ground for recruitment to the enemy's side; switching attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, arrogant public statements, disdain for international agreements and codes and bodies, etc.

Quote:
The big fist theory (let's call it that) has what precedent examples to back it up? Israel, perhaps?


This is bound to create a stir, but Israel is actually quite restrained in their response to Palestinian terrorism. Their bulldozing of the houses of sucide bombers and assasinations of terrorist group leaders is hardly the equivalent of the hell we let loose on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Sure. And let's not forget how they've also shown great restraint in not dropping a small tactical nuke on Basra or on Syria. I admire them for this laudable restraint. The point is that Israeli citizens keep getting blown up and that's not getting better. Oddly, the Israeli 'strategy' seems to be the one which this administration has adopted (there is some evidence that the 'interrogation' techniques used in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and elsewhere were based on Israeli techniques). You'd think, given the parties involved, that a lesson might have been taken home from the David/Goliath story. As in Viet Nam, the delusion is that big shiny weapons and funky comm systems must logically trump all else. It's a delusion, manufactured or maintained or forwarded, that seems in no small part a consequence of the very big money to be made from modern industrial warfare.

Instead call it the Hunt Them Down And Capture or Kill Them Theory


The Aesthetic Approach to Strategic Counterterrorist Decision Making

Ami Joseph

Chanan Tigay

December 16, 1996

Counterterrorism combats terrorism through long-term, systematic opposition. This strategy counters violence with violence, and wages war on terrorist organizations by attempting to eliminate them. Counterterrorist strategy must incorporate both reactive and proactive measures to prove successful.

Another approach entails the use of specially trained anti-terror squads. These squads violently break into the terrorists' stronghold with the aim of neutralizing the terrorists and rescuing the hostages. Though this course of action risks the lives of the hostages and the anti-terrorists, it has been successfully implemented by the Israelis (1976) and by the French (1995). The Israeli special forces saved 103 hostages in a raid on the Entebbe Airport where they were being held captive. The Israeli commander and one citizen were killed. Similarly, a French anti-terror squad stormed an Air France jet in January of 1995, rescuing all of the hostages aboard. Only one French officer was injured.

The genesis of counterterrorism is terrorism. As long as terrorism continues to penetrate and disrupt the law and order of a society, that society must learn counterterrorist methods to defend itself against these attacks.


Successful Turkish Counter-terrorism Methods
This is uniquely unenlightening.


Quote:
We ought to be ruthless with bad guys. Sure. But how do we spot them? They are of suspicious complexion? Abu Ghraib demonstrates how wrong 'justice' can go when folks get too eager to get them bad guys.


You are mixing arguments. I've not seen evidence that the folks abused at Abu Ghraib were innocent bank tellers or school teachers. The abuse of these men was wrong, but that doesn't mean that they weren't bad guys.
Quote:
Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported.
from USA Today

The Turks managed to spot the bad guys in a land where everyone's complexion is about the same.

Mistakes will be made along the way, and so we need to come to terms with this fact. Either we accept that mistakes will be made or we accept that we will never be able to significantly reduce terrorism. I choose the former, but can understand the thinking of those who choose the latter -- I also suspect that their choice would be different if they or a loved one were confronted with the reality of terrorism, but to be fair that argument can be turned on me -- would my choice change if I or a loved one were one of the mistakes.

Yes, as always in all endeavors, mistakes will be made. But what is equally true is that there often comes a point where the mistakes are so continual and so destructive that everyone begins to realize that the mistake-makers have absolutely no business being in a postion where they might continue making them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
blatham wrote:
OccamsWillie
Laughing Laughing Laughing


"I'm a hell of a lot more upset about this because my people did it!"? Okay. That is reasonable¬Ö and in some ways I even concur. It's a mystery to me why I'd have to drag that out of you? Your pre-trial conviction is where it becomes unreasonable, IMO. If this proves to be a rogue element in our armed services (my opinion) then you will have still done the balance of our service people (and nations) a disservice by characterizing the many by the actions of the few (not unlike Muslims who are unfairly characterized as terrorists). Where as our actions may or may not have been looked past by our leaders, Iraq's were specifically endorsed by Saddam and frequently carried out by his own demented offspring. By not revealing your self centered justification for your self-loathing until it's dragged out of you, you give off the impression of not caring, recognizing or understanding the substantial gap between our tragic mistakes and Saddam's hideous intentional atrocities. Admitting you agree that Saddam's actions were far worse takes no steam away from your opinion that ours were despicable. Contrarily, it lends additional credibility and may even help prevent these side trips into explaining why your arguments sound intellectually dishonest. I'm glad to see we are essentially on the same page here (only orders of importance are reversed). I might also encourage you to consider whether loyalty to your country should really take such precedence over loyalty to your species. Idea


Bill

It's not that you had to drag it out of me like some deformed and velcro-covered fetus. It is that I have said it too many times previously and consider it a given. Many months ago, I stated on one of these numberless discussions to "please place the following sentence at the beginning of all my posts...'sadaam is a bad guy'"

As to your final complimentary (free) lightbulb...I have almost no nationalist sentiments and could happily pull down a maple leaf flag and wipe my ass with it if the need arose. I find such symbols are put to poor uses far too often. The point is proximity to a point of influence. Normally we can influence the state where we live more effectively than other states, but if I was in Belgium and could stop a robbery, I would attempt it at least so much as my personal cowardice would permit.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
In fact, governments on the parliamentary style almost always fall near the end, or after the end of a war, even when they "win" the war. Churchill's National Government in 1945 is the most striking example. At one time, it was axiomatic in American politics that the Democrats lead us into war, and the Republicans either ended the war, or took control of Congress after the war. Now, however, we have a string of either disasterous involvements, or dirty little wars from Republican administrations, beginning with Ray Gun.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:11 am
blatham wrote:
Many months ago, I stated on one of these numberless discussions to "please place the following sentence at the beginning of all my posts...'sadaam is a bad guy'"
An occasional reminder might serve you well.

blatham wrote:
The point is proximity to a point of influence. Normally we can influence the state where we live more effectively than other states, but if I was in Belgium and could stop a robbery, I would attempt it at least so much as my personal cowardice would permit.
This is where our core philosophical differences become irreconcilable, I suspect. Between the awesome destructive power of WMD, the lightning pace that the Internet shares information and the cultural diversity enjoyed in my country; I consider the world a pretty small place. Add to this the fact that the United States is the financial backbone of much of the planet and I just can't view us as a separate entity. It just seems like everyone is my next door neighbor. Everywhere is Belgium (per your example) in my book.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:34 am
Quote:
Between the awesome destructive power of WMD[/i]

Well, you might want to look into the 'awesome' destructive power of WMD.

Not counting nuclear bombs (which were around for years before we even had the term, and are pretty well understood by the common man) WMD really aren't any more deadly than conventional explosives, especially large ones. The 9/11 terrorists showed us that you don't need WMD to kill a huge amount of people at all. What do WMD do, then? They scare people. Which is why the term is thrown around so often.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:46 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Between the awesome destructive power of WMD[/i]

Well, you might want to look into the 'awesome' destructive power of WMD.

Not counting nuclear bombs (which were around for years before we even had the term, and are pretty well understood by the common man) WMD really aren't any more deadly than conventional explosives, especially large ones. The 9/11 terrorists showed us that you don't need WMD to kill a huge amount of people at all. What do WMD do, then? They scare people. Which is why the term is thrown around so often.

Cycloptichorn
Mr. Moore, is that you? Surely you are not that ignorant. A single WMD could kill 1,000 Times more people that 4 airplanes did on September 11th. I'll grant you that there is some excess fear-mongering going around, but doubting the potential of advanced WMD is the epitome of foolishness. It is you who needs to do some research.

Edit= changed 1,000 more to 1,000 times more for the needed and deserved effect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/31/2023 at 11:24:20