Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

JohnnyFlame · 10-20-2006, 12:20 PM

I'm firmly in the camp that wonders who is pulling the strings with this terrorist thing. Not to the point of it being a conspiracy but just that it sure seems to lineup for the interests of those who support the guys in power.

But then also I wonder if they want to win/take out this scourge then how do they go about it.

You have countries supporting terrorists. You have terrorists hiding amongst civilians and fighting from those spots or using relgious holy sites as their cover. You have the bombing of civilians etc.

It comes down to when you have an enemy who dosen't play by the established rules then what do you do?

We like to think that as democracies we are above all that but do try and remember that during the Second World War the Allies just kept upping the ante including carpet bombing(designed to kill civilians) and fire bombing Dresden(designed to kill civilians) right up and including dropping the big one on them(designed to kill civilians).

A little drastic to take those kinds of actions today but how could they up the ante.

1. You get caught and a military tribunal judges ya --toast!!!
2. They could go back to free season on pickin guys off -- see ya KIMBO!!!
3. Take the gloves off when they know there are guys who are actively involved in terrorism or promoting it but they don't have enough proof for a trial -- they just dissapear or end up deported or in front of one of those military tribunals.

I'm sure there would be usual holier than thou types who would say that you can't do that in a democracy -- not that it hasn't been done before or even continues to be done but don't let the facts get in the way.

Or do you go with the real cynical move -- get the rival Muslim factions fighting against each other -- promote a Syrian/Iranian battle and sell arms to both sides.

All look like viable stategems and whether they are morally reprehensible is a matter of debate.

Personally I think you try and avoid war making every possible overture to the other side and then some. BUT if it comes down to the decision to fight then it's all out no holds barred.

IF this was a conventional war nobody would think twice about military tribunals -- So is this a war or just a skirmish?

10-20-2006, 12:20 PM	#14
JohnnyFlame Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Oct 2001 Exp:	I'm firmly in the camp that wonders who is pulling the strings with this terrorist thing. Not to the point of it being a conspiracy but just that it sure seems to lineup for the interests of those who support the guys in power. But then also I wonder if they want to win/take out this scourge then how do they go about it. You have countries supporting terrorists. You have terrorists hiding amongst civilians and fighting from those spots or using relgious holy sites as their cover. You have the bombing of civilians etc. It comes down to when you have an enemy who dosen't play by the established rules then what do you do? We like to think that as democracies we are above all that but do try and remember that during the Second World War the Allies just kept upping the ante including carpet bombing(designed to kill civilians) and fire bombing Dresden(designed to kill civilians) right up and including dropping the big one on them(designed to kill civilians). A little drastic to take those kinds of actions today but how could they up the ante. 1. You get caught and a military tribunal judges ya --toast!!! 2. They could go back to free season on pickin guys off -- see ya KIMBO!!! 3. Take the gloves off when they know there are guys who are actively involved in terrorism or promoting it but they don't have enough proof for a trial -- they just dissapear or end up deported or in front of one of those military tribunals. I'm sure there would be usual holier than thou types who would say that you can't do that in a democracy -- not that it hasn't been done before or even continues to be done but don't let the facts get in the way. Or do you go with the real cynical move -- get the rival Muslim factions fighting against each other -- promote a Syrian/Iranian battle and sell arms to both sides. All look like viable stategems and whether they are morally reprehensible is a matter of debate. Personally I think you try and avoid war making every possible overture to the other side and then some. BUT if it comes down to the decision to fight then it's all out no holds barred. IF this was a conventional war nobody would think twice about military tribunals -- So is this a war or just a skirmish?