• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evildave's Second Proposed Solution To Terrorism

evildave

Unregistered
E
Thanks to the fine input from, crackmonkey, rikzilla, Jocko, evilgoldtoesock, Skeptic, hammegk and Grammatron, I think we can come up with a more "popular" solution to terrorism.

This combines the best of their input that:

1. American lives are worth more than anybody else's.

2. That non-American human suffering is impossible.

3. Non-violent solutions to problems are unrealistic.

4. Maintaining positive international relations is pointless.

5. WWII levels of scorched earth campaigns are acceptable if the perceived threat is bad enough.

6. America Can Do No Wrong.

Step 1. Encircle border of nation containing suspected terrorists with AC-130 gunships and predator attack drones, armed with anti-personnel weaponry. Destroy roads and bridges. Kill anything that tries to cross the border in any direction. We'll need an extra 1,000 gunships, and an extra 10,000 drones. Possibly improvements to drones to control larger numbers of them over greater distances. AWAC and air defense patrols should also be used to protect the gunships.

Step 2. Systematically obliterate the entire population. Make the whole region uninhabitable. Heavily mine open regions around desirable energy producing infrastructure, mines containing valuable minerals, etc. Use neutron bombs or nerve agents where expensive to rebuild infrastructure is mixed with a dense human population.

Step 3. Send some contractors in to operate the machinery that America wanted. If America didn't want anything from that country, just ruin and poison it all. That will make sure none of the neighboring nations try to make a land grab that causes further conflict.

Step 4. Repeat with other nations until 'terrorism threat' is thoroughly neutralized.


No American lives are threatened at any time (unless any are stupid enough to be present in a foreign country). The airmen are safely high up in the air or somewhere over the horizon, or back home at the missile launch silo, controlling the weapons of mass destruction remotely.

It's also guaranteed to work. After all, when *everybody* is dead, the terrorists will certainly be dead, too.

Problem solved.
 
You're kinda funny when you get all pouty.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings when I pointed out that the AL Qaeda network was a loony idea...
Maybe you're right, though. Maybe the terrorists just need some attention. Give 'em a hug.
 
evildave said:
Thanks to the fine input from, crackmonkey, rikzilla, Jocko, evilgoldtoesock, Skeptic, hammegk and Grammatron, I think we can come up with a more "popular" solution to terrorism.

This combines the best of their input that:

1. American lives are worth more than anybody else's.

2. That non-American human suffering is impossible.

3. Non-violent solutions to problems are unrealistic.

4. Maintaining positive international relations is pointless.

5. WWII levels of scorched earth campaigns are acceptable if the perceived threat is bad enough.

6. America Can Do No Wrong.

Step 1. Encircle border of nation containing suspected terrorists with AC-130 gunships and predator attack drones, armed with anti-personnel weaponry. Destroy roads and bridges. Kill anything that tries to cross the border in any direction. We'll need an extra 1,000 gunships, and an extra 10,000 drones. Possibly improvements to drones to control larger numbers of them over greater distances. AWAC and air defense patrols should also be used to protect the gunships.

Step 2. Systematically obliterate the entire population. Make the whole region uninhabitable. Heavily mine open regions around desirable energy producing infrastructure, mines containing valuable minerals, etc. Use neutron bombs or nerve agents where expensive to rebuild infrastructure is mixed with a dense human population.

Step 3. Send some contractors in to operate the machinery that America wanted. If America didn't want anything from that country, just ruin and poison it all. That will make sure none of the neighboring nations try to make a land grab that causes further conflict.

Step 4. Repeat with other nations until 'terrorism threat' is thoroughly neutralized.


No American lives are threatened at any time (unless any are stupid enough to be present in a foreign country). The airmen are safely high up in the air or somewhere over the horizon, or back home at the missile launch silo, controlling the weapons of mass destruction remotely.

It's also guaranteed to work. After all, when *everybody* is dead, the terrorists will certainly be dead, too.

Problem solved.

I don't know if there's a record for most fallacies in one post, but if there is, I think this septic runoff is is near the top.

Who said any of those things, precisely? As I remember it, most of your failed thread turned into a critique of your own simple-mindedness - not Bush's, not bin Laden's, but yours. So would it make you happier if someone put you on TV to air your grievances? Jerry Springer's number is in the book and I'm sure he'd love to talk to you.

Edited to add that Hammegk didn't even post on that thread, but then I've stopped expecting details like accuracy from you. Just keep swinging at shadows and wait for the thorazine to take effect.
 
Kilted_Canuck said:
Ya know, its crazy enough that it just might work....:P *


No, but it might be crazy enough for an involunary commitment.
 
Re: Re: Evildave's Second Proposed Solution To Terrorism

Jocko said:


I don't know if there's a record for most fallacies in one post, but if there is, I think this septic runoff is is near the top.

Who said any of those things, precisely? As I remember it, most of your failed thread turned into a critique of your own simple-mindedness - not Bush's, not bin Laden's, but yours. So would it make you happier if someone put you on TV to air your grievances? Jerry Springer's number is in the book and I'm sure he'd love to talk to you.

Edited to add that Hammegk didn't even post on that thread, but then I've stopped expecting details like accuracy from you. Just keep swinging at shadows and wait for the thorazine to take effect.

Show me where I said to just give Al Qaeda a microphone and declared 'appeasement' a policy. The previous thread had a lot of ad-hominem and really little suggestions, alternatives or positive participation.

Hammegk was in the anti-torture threads (on the pro-torture side). He deserved an honorable mention.


I ask people to consider education and positive alternatives to terrorism, and nobody wants to hear of it.


I give them their genocidal solution and nobody seems to want that, either.


"There's just no pleasing some people." (Movie quote)


Hmm, maybe the middle ground....

How about we just kill every other person, and only poison half their territory? Bound to kill around half the terrorists (statistically speaking) that way. Nah. That smacks of half-measures, really, and American lives would be put at risk.


The "right" answer that everyone seems to like is brute force. Carpet bombing, cluster munitions and torture for any of the stragglers. Foreigners don't really feel pain like Americans do, ain't that right?

Flashy fireworks, maimed refugees, burned babies. That's the American way to take care of a problem.

There's just no reason to invest in education and a future. Don't even THINK about trying to uplift people from their violent patterns. Nope. There are exceptional cases like Bin Laden, so the whole lot of them should be destroyed, right?

After all, since the Nazis and Japanese came up in the previous half-baked idea thread, didn't we eradicate all Germans and Japanese at the end of WWII? After all, they were "evil incarnate". I have a whole bunch of Disney WWII cartoons that say so (a highly recommended DVD purchase).

No, we didn't wipe them all out? We even helped rebuild what we destroyed? Must have been an oversight. Or maybe people can be changed? Why should someone in the Middle East be any more immutable than a Nazi or Japanese soldier?

It's not like I'm suggesting terrorism and violence will be eradicated over night. You have to start doing something in a positive way, somewhere, or we'll never be rid of it. In order to do something, you have to plan as if something is possible to be done, rather than reject the very notion that doing something humanitarian is "worth it", compared to carpet-bombing.

At some point you have to seperate terrorists from normal people who are just caught in the crossfire. If you don't, then you're going to be making those 'rivers of blood'... but it's foreign blood, so it doesn't matter.
 
Mainland UK has had it's longest period without a terrorist attack for many years. The last attack we had on the mainland was by the Real IRA, back in 2001. I don't think we've managed 3 terrorist-attack-free years since the 1960s.

So the answer is obviously to be more like the UK.
 
iain said:
Mainland UK has had it's longest period without a terrorist attack for many years. The last attack we had on the mainland was by the Real IRA, back in 2001. I don't think we've managed 3 terrorist-attack-free years since the 1960s.

So the answer is obviously to be more like the UK.
I don't think Denmark has had a terrorist attack in modern times, so we're a more obvious role model then the UK. Edited to add:We will of course provide technical assistance to the Americans as requested, in the fine arts of beer drinking and surrendering to the Germans (I don't understand why the French get all the credit for that, we did it first, and we're better at it).
 
Kerberos said:
I don't think Dnemark has had a terrorist attack in modern times, so I think there is a more obvious role model then the UK.
Plus they have far superior dental hygiene than the Brits... ;)
 
Here's my solution; we give all the states involved nuclear devices, but we swap round all the keys so that no-one knows who they'd be launching them against (or if they'd be launched at all). So for instance, if Syria decided to nuke Jordan, they'd have to take into account that they might detonate their own weapons, or even launch a strike from Iran against themselves. Of course, we'd have to secure the weapons against tampering (maybe a failsafe that detonated if anyone tried), but in my opinion this would be no less crazy than current solutions, and would provide contracts for the US's military industry. Result!
 
BillyTK said:
Here's my solution; we give all the states involved nuclear devices, but we swap round all the keys so that no-one knows who they'd be launching them against (or if they'd be launched at all). So for instance, if Syria decided to nuke Jordan, they'd have to take into account that they might detonate their own weapons, or even launch a strike from Iran against themselves. Of course, we'd have to secure the weapons against tampering (maybe a failsafe that detonated if anyone tried), but in my opinion this would be no less crazy than current solutions, and would provide contracts for the US's military industry. Result!
Nice idea, but unfortunately, the Americans set their Nuclear keys to be all zeros for most of the cold war.
 
Evildave, I'm not going to dissect your rant post by post, since I left my bottle of Purell at home and I don't know what I'd catch off it. But just to summarize:

Firstly,you feel disgust with the "bomb them all, kill them all crowd." Please reference one of these legion posts for our benefit, would you? Because until you do, you're argument's as full of ◊◊◊◊ as a used colostomy bag. You're condemning statement that have never been made on this forum, at least not that I've seen.

Secondly, your solution is appeasement, plain and simple. Conceding advantages because you're afraid is appeasement, no matter what color dress you put on it. Appeasement fails because it is in human nature to exploit weaknesses, real or perceived.

Thirdly, you were in trouble the second you began the other thread because you opened with: "The answer is simple..."

Moron alert. Moron alert. Moron alert. And you didn't disappoint, did you?

So feel free to come up with new ways to encourage terrorism; maybe a miles reward plan so every tenth crashed plane is free? Sounds like a winner to me - after all, the answer is simple...
 
evildave said:
Thanks to the fine input from, crackmonkey, rikzilla, Jocko, evilgoldtoesock, Skeptic, hammegk and Grammatron, I think we can come up with a more "popular" solution to terrorism.

This combines the best of their input that:

1. American lives are worth more than anybody else's.

2. That non-American human suffering is impossible.

3. Non-violent solutions to problems are unrealistic.

4. Maintaining positive international relations is pointless.

5. WWII levels of scorched earth campaigns are acceptable if the perceived threat is bad enough.

6. America Can Do No Wrong.

Step 1. Encircle border of nation containing suspected terrorists with AC-130 gunships and predator attack drones, armed with anti-personnel weaponry. Destroy roads and bridges. Kill anything that tries to cross the border in any direction. We'll need an extra 1,000 gunships, and an extra 10,000 drones. Possibly improvements to drones to control larger numbers of them over greater distances. AWAC and air defense patrols should also be used to protect the gunships.

Step 2. Systematically obliterate the entire population. Make the whole region uninhabitable. Heavily mine open regions around desirable energy producing infrastructure, mines containing valuable minerals, etc. Use neutron bombs or nerve agents where expensive to rebuild infrastructure is mixed with a dense human population.

Step 3. Send some contractors in to operate the machinery that America wanted. If America didn't want anything from that country, just ruin and poison it all. That will make sure none of the neighboring nations try to make a land grab that causes further conflict.

Step 4. Repeat with other nations until 'terrorism threat' is thoroughly neutralized.


No American lives are threatened at any time (unless any are stupid enough to be present in a foreign country). The airmen are safely high up in the air or somewhere over the horizon, or back home at the missile launch silo, controlling the weapons of mass destruction remotely.

It's also guaranteed to work. After all, when *everybody* is dead, the terrorists will certainly be dead, too.

Problem solved.

Wow! Could there be ANY STRAW LEFT ON THE PLANET???!

-z
 
Re: Re: Evildave's Second Proposed Solution To Terrorism

rikzilla said:


Wow! Could there be ANY STRAW LEFT ON THE PLANET???!

-z

All I know is that my amish door decoration was missing this morning. Imagine my surprise to find it here.
 
Re: Re: Evildave's Second Proposed Solution To Terrorism

I don't know if there's a record for most fallacies in one post, but if there is, I think this septic runoff is is near the top.

You don't understand. EvilDave"s "first solution"--let's give the homicidal maniacs their radio station, then they'll calm down--was really a case of "alternative medicine" masquarading (sp?) as political commentary.

The general argument that good intentions, having the right "feelings", treating "the whole society" (or "the whole person"), "understanding" the spirituality and deep-held beliefs of the (or terrorist group), and above all WANTING the "healing process" to work is good enough. Never mind that the idea, like most "alternative" treatments, is utterly absurd, and very likely to cause far more harm than good. It's the INTENTION that counts.

You could see that from EvilDave's and some (qualified) supporters of his view in the previous thread, "EvilDave's solution to terrorism": "Well, at least he is TRYING to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX and have an ORIGINAL TREATMENT that might points toward a solution!". This is really a translation of the rhetoric of the "alternative medicine" proponents: "Well, at least we are TRYING to heal people and GIVE THEM HOPE!".

When that nonsense doesn't convince real MDs, the next, and nastier, stage is reached by the "alternative medicine" proponents: namely, accusing "unfeeling" doctors, "greedy" drug companies, etc., of using "non-holistic" medicine that just "slashes, burns, and poisons" and "doesn't treat the whole person", unlike their wonderful, wonderful "natural" methods.

Same thing here: when EvilDave's "Solution to terrorism' was laughed off the stage by anybody who knows anything about terrorism, he started ranting: "well, at least I'm TRYING to solve the problem with HUMANE methods, you racist violent people!!!"

But what did you expect? Since EvilDave repeatedly showed he has about as much understanding of terrorism as the average "alternative health practitioner" has of real medicine, smearing those who laugh at him and claiming an evil conspiracy is his only change for "respectability".
 
Jocko: "Moron alert. Moron alert. Moron alert. And you didn't disappoint, did you?"

Jocko: "Just keep swinging at shadows and wait for the thorazine to take effect."

Jocko: "No, but it might be crazy enough for an involunary commitment."

Skeptic: (Too long winded to make a good quote. Must be incapable of a short one-liner.)

crackmonkey: "You're kinda funny when you get all pouty. "

Wow, I have such loyal fans. A following, no less. People hanging on my every word. How touching.

A note: This is not the alternatives topic. This is the "just kill them all" topic. When I come up with the next alternative, it will get its own topic, too.

Don't cross-post, or you'll sound like Franko whining about 'gravitrons'.
 
Skeptic: (Too long winded to make a good quote. Must be incapable of a short one-liner.)

You're an naive, self-important idiot.

Happy now?

Wow, I have such loyal fans.

The usual kook's reasoning:

1). I offered plan X for world peace.
2). Everybody laughed at me.
3). This means they are just JEALOUS of my GENIUS!
 
I enjoyed this post. But let's really see how unfair ED is to conservative foreign policy views on this board.

The implicit guiding principles are as follows:

evildave said:
1. American lives are worth more than anybody else's.

True.

2. That non-American human suffering is impossible.

False. Non-American human suffering is possible, maybe even real, but the first precept deflates its significance to relatively nothing.

3. Non-violent solutions to problems are unrealistic.

True.

4. Maintaining positive international relations is pointless.

Maintaining positive international relations is an instrumental value that should only be pursued in accordance with our perceived self-interest. As a goal in itself, yes, it's pointless.

5. WWII levels of scorched earth campaigns are acceptable if the perceived threat is bad enough.

True.

6. America Can Do No Wrong.

Qualified truth. We can do wrong, but we don't. We did, but it no longer matters. Some "Americans" complain about it, but they're self-hating leftists.
 
evildave said:
J
Wow, I have such loyal fans. A following, no less. People hanging on my every word. How touching.


Actually, it's more of a medical observation.

So how about coming up with some evidence that anyone on this forum has ever said "kill them all, America can do no wrong?"

Strawmen and false dilemmas aren't enough for you; oh no, you've got to resort to naked lies. And to think we ever doubted your genius, Mr. Kissinger.

Shame on us.
 

Back
Top Bottom