Should we try to put this to rest?

[Winky]

Kill them
Kill them
Kill Them

yep that will be the chant the morning a WMD is
detonated in an American city yep

And Flav will be blaming America then too…

 

[flavio]

If a WMD is detonated in an American city I'm all for killing the people responsible.

It seems you'd just like to kill people in general....and blame America.

 

[Gato_Solo]

If a WMD is detonated in an American city I'm all for killing the people responsible.

It seems you'd just like to kill people in general....and blame America.

Interesting. Now how, pray-tell, would you target said enemy? Suppose the enemy ran into a museum. Would you target the museum? How about a church? A school? A hospital? A mosque? How about an apartment building? A city? A country? How far are you willing to go? We now know that you're not above revenge, which is the same thing you condemn when I say it. Now remember one thing...you're retaliation will also be avenged. If you do not retaliate, you are seen as weak and open yourself up for further attacks...

 

[flavio]

Interesting. Now how, pray-tell, would you target said enemy? Suppose the enemy ran into a museum. Would you target the museum? How about a church? A school? A hospital? A mosque? How about an apartment building? A city? A country? How far are you willing to go? We now know that you're not above revenge, which is the same thing you condemn when I say it. Now remember one thing...you're retaliation will also be avenged. If you do not retaliate, you are seen as weak and open yourself up for further attacks...

Nice analogy. So when he ran into an apartment building you'd want to blow up the whole building and wouldn't care if innocents died. I'd say send in SWAT.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Nice analogy. So when he ran into an apartment building you'd want to blow up the whole building and wouldn't care if innocents died. I'd say send in SWAT.

Perhaps you don't understand the question. As for blowing up said building...if the people residing there did nothing to target said enemy, and some actively tried to interfere, then yes...flatten the building. I will not send troops into a situation that would get them killed like that.

 

[flavio]

Perhaps you don't understand the question. As for blowing up said building...if the people residing there did nothing to target said enemy, and some actively tried to interfere, then yes...flatten the building. I will not send troops into a situation that would get them killed like that.

From your statement above perhaps you don't understand how America works.

"if the people residing there did nothing to target said enemy" you would actaully have large numbers of Americans killed just because they were cowering in their apartments in fear when a criminal ran into the building. I don't think you'd get much support on that one.

 

[Gato_Solo]

From your statement above perhaps you don't understand how America works.

"if the people residing there did nothing to target said enemy" you would actaully have large numbers of Americans killed just because they were cowering in their apartments in fear when a criminal ran into the building. I don't think you'd get much support on that one.

Doesn't matter in a war zone. We can try to minimize damage, which is why we have all those 'smart' bombs, but it all boils down to the guy on the ground with his M-16/M203. Let's peel another layer off that onion. Let's say you send your troops in, and the people weren't cowering, but actively aiding and abetting. Now you have to send the letters out to the wives, parents, and children of the people you sent in to die just to 'arrest' the bad guy. They don't like the bad guy, but they have more dislike for you. That's what you don't understand, and that's what we're up against.

 

[Gonz]

Nice analogy. So when he ran into an apartment building you'd want to blow up the whole building and wouldn't care if innocents died. I'd say send in SWAT.

So, you don't understand the reasoning behind our outlandishly expensive (and Constitutionally mandated) defense spending?

SWAT are a group og people, trained, to kill. They put their life on the line to do their job.

A JDAM costs less than one SWAT members base annual pay, doesn't leave behind kids & spouses & other sundry family. A JDAM, if used correctly, is accurate & precise. However, there may be collateral damage. That's the price you pay to save lives.

 

[Winky]

nah elect Hillary in 08
roll back all the gains we've made since 9-11
endure suicide bombers in our malls and schools
whine and cry how it is all our fault and the terrorists
need understanding
that's the leftys answer

no wait, they haven’t any answers

..... - Leslie?

 

[flavio]

You guys are great. So the Oklahoma bomber hides in some big apartment building in Texas you would just blow the whole thing up instead of sending in SWAT to "save lives".

I say even if a few people are helping to hide the guy and the rest are just cowering inside their apartment sending in SWAT "saves lives".

 

[flavio]

nah elect Hillary in 08
roll back all the gains we've made since 9-11
endure suicide bombers in our malls and schools
whine and cry how it is all our fault and the terrorists
need understanding
that's the leftys answer

Certainly not my answer. If I ever typed such a thing show it to me. I would like to roll back some of the damage Bush has done.

no wait, they haven’t any answers

I got plenty of answers much better thought out than "kill all the moosies

..... - Leslie?

..... - Leslie.

 

[Gonz]

You guys are great. So the Oklahoma bomber hides in some big apartment building in Texas you would just blow the whole thing up instead of sending in SWAT to "save lives".

I say even if a few people are helping to hide the guy and the rest are just cowering inside their apartment sending in SWAT "saves lives".

McVeigh is dead & Nichols is serving alife sentence. Neither of these useless men had the mentality to strap themselves with bombs & take the whole gang to meet Allah.

 

[Winky]

I would like to roll back some of the damage Bush has done.

What damage?
Oh you'd put Saddam back in charge of Iraq?

Good plan, I'd vote yes on that one.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You guys are great. So the Oklahoma bomber hides in some big apartment building in Texas you would just blow the whole thing up instead of sending in SWAT to "save lives".

I say even if a few people are helping to hide the guy and the rest are just cowering inside their apartment sending in SWAT "saves lives".

Depends. Are the people in the building hostile to the SWAT coming in and aiding and abetting the bombers? If so...flatten the building.

 

[Winky]

Grozny

 

[Gato_Solo]

The common 'playbook' for hijackings before 9/11 was "Give them what they want, and they'll leave us alone". Explain how, and why, the 'rules' were changed...

 

[flavio]

Depends. Are the people in the building hostile to the SWAT coming in and aiding and abetting the bombers?

It says right in my post "a few people are helping to hide".

If so...flatten the building.

Good thing you're not in charge. Blatant disregard for innocent lives is not really the most endearing quality I've seen coming from our posters today.

 

[Gato_Solo]

It says right in my post "a few people are helping to hide".


Good thing you're not in charge. Blatant disregard for innocent lives is not really the most endearing quality I've seen coming from our posters today.

Too bad for your hand-wringing. I could be in charge. It's not blatant disregard if you know full well that sending men into that situation will mean sending letters home, just so you can protest the deaths of folks like me, or protest the deaths of the 'innocent', who you have no idea about, BTW, if the building gets flattened. I'm glad we don't have to rely upon you to make those choices, because everybody in your command would be dead for no good reason other than your inaction.

 

[flavio]

Too bad for your hand-wringing. I could be in charge. It's not blatant disregard if you know full well that sending men into that situation will mean sending letters home, just so you can protest the deaths of folks like me, or protest the deaths of the 'innocent', who you have no idea about, BTW, if the building gets flattened. I'm glad we don't have to rely upon you to make those choices, because everybody in your command would be dead for no good reason other than your inaction.

My 'action' would be sending in SWAT to do their job. You're 'action' would be bombing an apartment building full of people that had nothing to do with the situation. Yet you have the gall to talk about saving lives when you'd be costing far more.

 

[Gato_Solo]

My 'action' would be sending in SWAT to do their job. You're 'action' would be bombing an apartment building full of people that had nothing to do with the situation. Yet you have the gall to talk about saving lives when you'd be costing far more.

Number one. There are no SWAT teams in a war zone. You fail to realize that important fact that I mentioned.
Number two. You have no idea if the building full of people you are so willing to save are part of the plot or not, so, while you play armchair general, with no experience on your side, you'd happily send people in to die on a whim. Here's a real good clue for ya'...most, if not all, of the buildings that said bomber would run into are full of his/her cronies just waiting for someone like you to be afraid to pull the trigger.
Number three. I'll be damned if I let one troop under my orders storm a building that may be full of insurgents. You're damned straight I'd blow the building...If I'm wrong, then I'll pay the price. I'm willing to do that as well.

Now how far are you willing to go?