'War on Terror'

[Teejay]

This so called 'war on terror' is not a war on terrorism presay this is an ideological conflict between Liberal Democracy and Secularism against Islamism. The enemy wants to see the values we hold so dear, freedom of religion, human rights, democracy, secular law, women's rights and etc destroyed.

All replaced by a global caliphate, ruled by the Sharia, where women would be regarded as the property of their husbands and forced to wear the veil, where people who do not believe in the particular form of Islam, let alone other religions be forced to live second class citizens, if lucky. If they are not lucky they will have the choice of convert, die or be enslaved literally. Slavery would become a real part of life again (heck it is a part of life where the Islamists are ruling now in the Sudan and to a degree in Gulf Countries and Saudi Arabia). Not to mention we would be plunged into a new dark age.

This conflict which is now occurring is as serious as the Cold War and World War 2 were. I advocate to the extent we can preserve the values we are fighting for to use any methods necessary to totally destroy this muthafuckers and their movement off the face of the planet.

[Lucifer]

before you go any further, might i suggest you read "Unspeak" by Stephen Poole, which has quite a lot to say about the political agenda behind the phrase "war on terror".

[Beowulf]

before you go any further, might i suggest you read "Unspeak" by Stephen Poole, which has quite a lot to say about the political agenda behind the phrase "war on terror".

"Unspeak" by Stephen Poole? That's just cherry picking.

Might I suggest that, before you post in Intensity again, that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica.

LOL @ Myself! 

[Lucifer]

erm... i have, actually.  i also read dictionaries for a laugh.

yep, i am that much of an anorak.

[Beowulf]

erm... i have, actually. 

The 32-volume version? Cover to cover.

Read it again then.

[techstepgenr8tion]

When you talk about the 'War on Terror' though, that's kind of everyone's concern. You don't even need to take it from GWB, Fox News, American News, they'll tell you themselves exactly what they're about and what they intend to do with the world. I think what people have is that inertia problem where they have their own cozy little lives, their sheltered little bubbles, and they don't want to fight for their rights unless its right at their doorstep - problem with that psychology is while you finally have like 95% support and almost all those dissenting have had a major change of heart (ie. the facts are indisputable) the bodies are piled way higher than if someone just does what they have to early and takes all the hatemail from all over the world and even their own country in some cases.

[Nomaken]

I suggest we set all their oil reserves on fire leaving them with no diplomatic power and therefore of no consequence to the modern world. 

[techstepgenr8tion]

Yeah, we need out of there period I agree. The only issue though, no matter what happens now it's still going to self-escalate and if it's not Iran and their nuclear program there's so much stuff in Russia that was never accounted for. Like I said though, this is something the whole world needs to take responsibility on. We'd love to see 20 or 30 other countries put a real effort in - it would be taken care of much quicker, the intelligence would be a lot broader, and it would be a great opportunity for us to step it back a bit and let everyone else have as much control of the process.

[Leto729]

The process how it is the problem but how to solve it is even harder in the end.

[Nomaken]

Seriously.  Just get some American terrorists (or commandos) to go in there, get some napalm bombs, or some high exposives, and destory all of their oil reserves.

It will be hell on us as we get oil from other sources, and the price of gas will go up, but when it is clear to the gas companies that oil will be getting too expensive, they'll up investing in alternative energy sources.

[Lucifer]

great idea.  all that CO₂/particulate matter/hydrocarbon etc. released into the air at the same time.  the whole of the region would be unable to produce any food, or even be habitable, for fucking ages; you'd have a crisis catastrophe situation instantly, cos the place wouldn't even be habitable, so instant diaspora/refugee to sort out; global warming out of all recognition, instantly...

need i continue?

[Nomaken]

I didnt call them terrorists for no reason.  I don't really care how badly it would fuck up their environement.  But they wouldnt be able to hit all of the sites(and i'm not entirely sure it is as simple as setting them on fire since there is little to no oxygen in the ground for the fire to feed on, so there would need to be another way of destroying it), because once they hit a couple, they'd up the security of the remaining ones.  But it would still impede their ability to ship oil out and therefore reduce their bargaining power in foreign affairs.

[Lucifer]

OUR environment, you bloody twit, nomaken - GLOBAL warming not fucking well localised.

NIMBY is just exactly what i mean by irresponsbility.

[Nomaken]

Okay, lemme rephrase that.  I don't really care about our environment.  Anyway, if we firebombed the oil fields, it would only immediately create all the CO2 emissions that would later be created by our cars, and they'd be doing it over in their backwards country. (I want you to know that I know I dont know the extent to which it would damage our environment but im betting it would be serious, and it is more that I know this wont ever fucking happen than that i couldnt give a flying fuck.)

But you know we could just as well add impurities to the oil that make it unrefinable and ruin it.

[Peter]

But you know we could just as well add impurities to the oil that make it unrefinable and ruin it.

Yeah, we could add lead to it.  Who in their right minds would use that in their cars?