Top Extremist Cleric killed in Pakistan

that would only work if there was also a front with public policy and diplomacy which would have to include pressure for many of these countries to liberalize and democratize while propping up their economies. of course we rather waste hundreds of billions of dollars in iraq instead of launch real efforts to improve the situation for billions of people.

 

Then the solution is obvious, kill enough people to be labeled genocidal. I have no problem with people joining terrorist organizations being killed, even if they number in the tens of millions.

Well it is obviously not the strategy we are currently employing. If it was, public people like Muqtada al Sadr would be dead by now. I doubt it is the strategy being used by Pakistan either, because we would have heard about the thousands of people dieing in clashes between the government and al Queda. That we are not doing it does not mean that we can't, only that policy makers feel there is a better solution (which likely means one that is more palatable to the international community and/or voters).

Actually, that is the one strategy guaranteed to work without pressure for countries to democratize and propping up of economies. If you kill every single person that joins up with the (terrorist organization, radical movement, insert group here) then either people who would normally be potential recruits for said group (similar background, ideology, what have you) will stop joining up when they see the writing on the wall, or you will kill every person that would ever think about joining the group. There are not an infinite number of people on the planet willing to join a terrorist organization, if for no other reason than there are not an infinite number of people on the planet.

 

Sure it is possible. If we killed everyone else then there would be nobody left. Billions of people would have to be killed. The more people that are killed that way, though, the more others see it as unjust and would want to fight against it.

 

or we can make the world a better place and hence ensure that not many people would want to join such radical militant groups. but that would involve less killing. i know you wouldn't be a fan of that.

 

I find it a sad commentary that people could even consider the number of people willing to join terrorist organizations numbering in the billions. Either the terrorists are doing an all to effective job in portraying themselves as some sort of reasonable populists fighting the evil Ameri-Zionist Empire like so many Luke Skywalkers, such that some feel that the average person would join their cause just because the terrorists were being killed, or you are right and there are billions of people that would in fact become terrorists based simply on terrorists being hunted to extinction. Neither situation is especially rosy from my POV.

I think you would run into trouble going down that path when you try to come to some sort of a consensus on how to make the world a better place. One could easily make the argument that from their own points of view, both sides of every war are trying to make the world a better place.

 

The problem with the kill em all idea is that we aren't fighting a conventional war. We are fighting an ideological war rather than a war against a people.

Al Qaeda and many other radical groups operate in secret so its difficult to know for sure who is a member of them and not. Sure many groups have a public face but if you kill the public face just means that more people are going to go underground. If your kill them all strategy is to work you would have to kill all Muslims and those who might sympathize since you can never know who could potentially join.

That's something that will be impossible to due since that would mean genocide on a scale that would make the Holocaust and Stalins purges seem tame and its unlikely that even if the US chose to do it the rest of the world would sit by and let us do it.

Kill them all might make a nice bloodthirsty fantasy but it will never happen and anyone who tried it would rightly be considered mad.

 

I didn't say that the number was currently in the billions. I said it would be if we started killing everyone who was ever even a possibility to become a terrorist, if we used what you said was possible of not having infinite numbers to replace dead leaders.

If a nation started doing that kind of slaughter then I have no doubt billions would join any and all organizations to stop the nation instigating that kind of slaughter.

As far as making the world a better place, it might be easier than we think. Does anyone really think Sweeden is out to make the world a worse place, and therefore target them with frequency and create world wide organizations built to bring terror to them?

It has to do with not supporting regimes like those in the middle east that oppress there people, working with allies, etc. It can be done. We have money and power, let those nations who want it earn with moral govt. Let us support those who are truly democratic, and use due process, don't oppress a certain percentage of the population based on ethnicity etc.

Do that, and people won't be so willing to die trying to destroy you.

 

Killing more people doesn't make someone lose their will to fight. It makes them want to fight harder. When 9/11 happened we all wanted to fight harder than ever. We didn't lose our will.

 

well if you consider war opposition constantly reciting the number of US soldiers dead, and then demanding a withdrawl...i dont think your argument holds all the time.

 

So 9/11 caused people to oppose the Iraq war and call for a withdrawal of US troops?

Where do you get this stuff?

 

i can ask you the exact same thing. I never came close to making any statement like that.

 

They are reciting the number of dead in an unnecessary war that was started by the U.S. and isn't in the U.S. interest and calling for withdrawl because it will actually be better for IRaq if we get out.

They aren't citing the number of dead in Afghanistan and calling for withdrawl from there. That was actually related to the war on terror, and people would love to go there and do the job correctly.

 

Ummm yes you did, but not surprisingly, you aren't even aware of it.

Franchise cited 9/11 as an incentive for people in the US to fight harder. You quoted his post and then wrote

Were you not referring to the Iraq war?

If you are going to now claim you were referring to Afghanistan, please provide some evidence that people are "constantly" opposing our operations there, citing the # of soldiers dead, and demanding a withdrawal.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say kill everyone who might consider being a terrorist, I said kill everyone that joins a terrorist organization. I can see where you got that from my post, but taken in context with the earlier part I thought it was clear that you would only have to kill everyone who thought about joining terrorist organizations if the short life expectancy didn't discourage them from going through with those plans.

Maybe I have a very optimistic view of the world, but I don't think terrorist organizations will be able to recruit billions of people, no matter how many of their members get killed by the US + allies. People who may consider joining a terrorist organization, though despicable, are not coincident with people who actually do so.

 

This was bad for Musharraf and his government, too many casualties IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAPITAL INSIDE A MOSQUE. Musharraf lost his cool and I predict he -- and his country -- will feel the reverberations of this one for some time to come. This is being painted in some circles as a modern day "Tiananmen Square Massacre" for Pakistan.

Just a bad, bad, bad mess of his own making...

 

no, i didnt. but how convenient for you to tell me what i meant. nice straw man.

 

The problem is that most people in terrorist organizations aren't going around openly declaring they are. If you are going to kill them all you are going to rely on the suspicion that they are which could lead to killing many people who may just sympathize but aren't members or those who don't have really anything to do with the terrorists organizations.

If you are going to seek to kill them all though since the terrorists blend in with their societies and recruit you would have to wipe out all of those people just to be sure you got the terrorists.

Its not just a matter of if they recruit people its also how willing are people to give up the terrorists or support them in other ways. People under threat might act of fear of being killed by the US and give up the terrorists but if they feel that the US is indiscriminately killing them anyway they might see the terrorists as their only hope.

 

Except that Tiananmen Square didn't end up bringing down the PRC and the PRC has managed to supress negative reverberations from it.

I think its too early to see what this will be for Pakistan.

 

Then what were you referring to when you wrote-

Withdrawal from where?

Opposition to which war?

# of soldiers dead in which conflict?