Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Nov 8, 2014.
Are you in favor of terrorizing the terrorists?
From a purely fleshly point of view, I would think we should make every terrorist pee their pants.
If you get in a fist fight, and your opponent pulls out a knife, would you take a knife that someone tries to hand you?
Or would you hold your ground that you're in a fist fight, and that you won't stoop to your opponent's level?
Son, ur gonna git cut if you don't take that knife.
When I was in high school, this very scenario took place. The same school bus took kids home to the East side and the West side of K.C.
One day a fist fight broke out between one of us and one of them. Well, the guy from the other side pulled out a switch blade. What's our guy supposed to do? He didn't have a knife.
It just so happened that I was the resident knife dealer at our school, and I had a duffle bag full of 14" hunting knives. So guess who got a knife?
Not only did that one guy from our side get a knife, EVERY guy from our side got a knife. 25 knives to 1 - instant terror. Fight over.
How do you combat someone who has no fear? You change the game, and find something he will fear.
War is designed to have a winner and loser. Period.
Jihad? Man, I could get wicked stupid.
Does terrorizing the terrorist make the one terrorizing a terrorist?
Absolutely. You wanna shut that thing down? You'd better be better terrorists than they are
Is this discussion in regards to combatants or non-combatants?
Thank you for a good honest answer.
I'm talking Assyrian style terrorists. Skin their backs in front of loved ones and let them run around til they fall over dead.
Roman style, hanging some of them on a cross.
Put them in stocks, drown them, mutilate their hands and feet in a meat grinder, I wouldn't care.
I would never strike first with methods like that. But I would strike back 5 times more severe than they came.
Y'all need to define "terrorism" before you continue this discourse.
I think it's pretty obvious that Crabtownboy and I are speaking the same language.
Terror. Horror. Heart-melting fear. That's what terror-ists bring to the table, and their methods heighten it.
No problem. I see no need to hide from a legitimate assessment of the methods I would employ.
They would melt with fear, like this:
For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. (Josh 2:10-11)
What is war save for terrorism in action?
Do we want to win against a cult-inspired blood thirsty enemy that has nothing to lose when they pursue jihad and believe in being killed they see paradise? And in killing they are assured it?
Yes, terrorize the terrorists. Use their superstitions, those beliefs that lead them to fear they'll not see their Jihadi reward, against them.
Worked for General Blackjack Pershing. Made peace in the Philippines for over 40 years. I'm all for a repeat of history.
Just as sending women to fight the Jihadi enemy is another worthwhile tactic. Jihadi fighters believe if they're killed by a man in battle they go to paradise (heaven). But if they're killed by a woman in Jihad they go straight to Jahannam. (Hell)
It astounds me what some Christians believe is compatible with their religion... amazing.
This discussion is already going on at http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2161759
Sapper, not so. That is about current events. This is a philosophical discussion on people using terror to counter terror.
The third question becomes if a country or group begins using terror to combat what they consider terror, how are they any different. Both sides consider the other terrorist, so are both justified in using terror? [I am not attempting to discuss current events, the US, Syria, Iran, etc. I am interested in how can this position be philosophically or theologically justified?
The actions are the same, but the motives are what set the two apart.
Just like with my 8 year old son. He's 5 feet tall and 125 pounds. He's HUGE for his age. I teach him to be kind, gentle, patient, never start an altercation. Be an example. Be a leader. Love others, etc
But at school, there are a couple of his classmates who apparently think he's somehody they can push around because he has a gentle heart. They try (well, tried) shoving him, hitting him, etc quite a few times
I got fed up with the "time out" nonsense as a way of discipling those boys, and I gave my son some new instructions.
I told him if one of those little punks hits him again, he needs to haul off and punch them in the teeth as hard as he can. Hurt one of them, BAD. Give it all he's got and send them a clear message. About a week ago, it happened. One boy got mad and started punching my son, and my son grabbed him by the hair and smashed his face about 5 times with his fist.
And I can guarantee that boy knew what hit him
I was called, as was the other parent. We hashed out who started what, and I didn't have to say a word. The other parent climed all over her son, and told him that if he hit first, he had it coming. She was fuming, and couldn't apologize enough.
I assured her that I've tried to teach my boy that violence is not something to strive for, but that certain times call for it. That it saddened me that my son had to resort to what he did.
Like I said, I would never strike first with terroristic measures. But I would most certainly end those kinds of tactics with a heaping helping of it in return
Terrorist tactics are evil. It is wrong to use them. It really is that simple. Terrifying tactics (such as lightning strikes, ambushes, etc) are OK. Terrorist tactics (such as using pig's blood, mutilation, etc) are despicable, lowlife tactics.
Anyone who is in favor of using terrorist tactics are no better than the terrorists.
Can not each point at the other and say you are the terrorist. My motives are pure.
[I am not arguing with you, just curious and discussing the topic.]
Yes, and they do.
Whether it's two 8-year olds, or a large army, both sides seek justification for their actions.
Jihadists justify their actions by pointing to what they perceive as infidels corrupting the world.
Currently, we justify our actions (or lack thereof) by pointing to what we perceive as the good of humanity.
These kinds of issues change with the wind. Every society has had a standard by which it would treat this sort of thing. We like to think we're "better" than previous societies by trying to be more civil.
But is civility the best recourse? That's obviously debatable, because everybody has a point of view. And every point of view has various nuances which separate it from the others.
I happen to be results oriented. I want the most effective resolution to a problem. My preference is to walk away without confrontation. If that's not an option, then I like to reason out problems.
But how do you reason with insanity? How do you reason with a wild donkey?
I'm in favor of coming home and minding our own business. It is the job of the Iraqi people to get rid of ISIL. It is the job of the Afghani to get rid of the Taliban.
If we come home and stay home, and they still attack us, nuke them. If they kill one American nuke one of their cities. If they kill two Americans, nuke two of their cities. They will run out of cities before we run out of nukes. And the world will learn a lesson. We will leave you alone, and you better leave us alone, or you will not live to regret it.