Christian Cleric calls for Violence,,,Uh, wait!

**AmPat** · 11-09-2010, 09:39 AM

Especially if you make the strike horrific. I'll see your terrorism and I'll raze you a city. Don't occupy or rebuild, just kill the bastards where you find them. When I see a roach in my house I kill it, never for one moment thinking I can kill all of them.

**marv** · 11-09-2010, 09:44 AM

So Awlaqi says to kill Americans without hesitation. Uhhhh, isn't he an American?

**m00** · 11-10-2010, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking

Cut off the head and you kill the beast.

Take out the leaders and get rid of the radical clerics and you will go a long way to eliminating the problem.

Not the entire way, but a long way.

But AQ is a "headless" organization. It's a freakin' franchise. There's no way to kill it, other than to starve it... and by starve it I mean stop buying oil. Stop using our tax-dollars for "aid." If a bunch of goat-herders want me to die, I got no problem with that (assuming we don't stupidly let them in the country). If a bunch of goat-herders with a well funded international terrorist organization want me to die... well that's a different proposition.

**PoliCon** · 11-10-2010, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by m00

Yeah this is so true. It's why a self-sufficient energy and food policy are fundamental to our survival. As well as air tight borders and a missile defense shield. I can't see how anyone - right or left - can argue this.

Right because shoving our heads in the sand and backing ourselves into a corner will of course work out well for us.

**Odysseus** · 11-10-2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by marv

So Awlaqi says to kill Americans without hesitation. Uhhhh, isn't he an American?

Yes, he is. Which means that it's okay to kill him without hesitation. If anyone (read: ACLU) objects, we can quote his directive.

Originally Posted by m00

But AQ is a "headless" organization. It's a freakin' franchise. There's no way to kill it, other than to starve it... and by starve it I mean stop buying oil. Stop using our tax-dollars for "aid." If a bunch of goat-herders want me to die, I got no problem with that (assuming we don't stupidly let them in the country). If a bunch of goat-herders with a well funded international terrorist organization want me to die... well that's a different proposition.

It's not headless, it's decentralized. There's a difference. The individuals are capable of destructive acts on their own (MAJ Nidal Hassan, for example), but they need guidance, both technical and doctrinal, and support. Without that, they are confined to individual acts of jihad, with no coordination. Dangerous, but not unstoppable.

AQ and its affiliates have leaders, and the harder you hit them, the less likely they are to hit back. Zawahiri fled Egypt when the government there cracked down on him and his Salifist group in the early 90s, and focused on exporting jihad to everywhere but Egypt. The problem is that the Saudis haven't been made to pay a price for their support for these groups. Without their financing, AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood would be completely inoperable. Punitive acts against the Saudis should include (but not be limited to) personal financial liability for acts of terror committed by Saudi nationals (the Bin Laden family should have been impoverished after 9/11, with all of their overseas assets confiscated by the US government as compensation). Similarly, any Saudi national caught financing a terror group should have their assets frozen if and when that group commits an act of terror. Also, the dirty little secret of the Saudi oil industry is that they don't run it. The drilling, pumping and refining is done by westerners, mostly Americans. If the Saudis continue to finance terror, we can shut down their oil exports, which will cost us, but cripple them. The issuing of visas to the US and allied countries should be tied into cooperation, with anyone who finances terrorism subjected to a ban on travel to the US, or on any carrier that does business with the US. Finally, anybody, anywhere, any time, who is caught financing terror groups and refuses to answer in a US court should be indicted in absentia and any time that they leave Saudia Arabia, subjected to arrest and extradition in any country that we have a treaty with. True, the Europeans will howl, but ultimately, they will buckle if we show that we mean it. A policy that impacts the Saudi elites' bottom line and confines them to their hellhole of a country will hurt them more than shooting at them.

Originally Posted by PoliCon

Right because shoving our heads in the sand and backing ourselves into a corner will of course work out well for us.

No, but shoving the heads of those people who back terror into the sand, and holding them down until they swallow some, will work wonders.

**AmPat** · 11-10-2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Yes, he is. Which means that it's okay to kill him without hesitation. If anyone (read: ACLU) objects, we can quote his directive.

It's not headless, it's decentralized. There's a difference. The individuals are capable of destructive acts on their own (MAJ Nidal Hassan, for example), but they need guidance, both technical and doctrinal, and support. Without that, they are confined to individual acts of jihad, with no coordination. Dangerous, but not unstoppable.

AQ and its affiliates have leaders, and the harder you hit them, the less likely they are to hit back. Zawahiri fled Egypt when the government there cracked down on him and his Salifist group in the early 90s, and focused on exporting jihad to everywhere but Egypt. The problem is that the Saudis haven't been made to pay a price for their support for these groups. Without their financing, AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood would be completely inoperable. Punitive acts against the Saudis should include (but not be limited to) personal financial liability for acts of terror committed by Saudi nationals (the Bin Laden family should have been impoverished after 9/11, with all of their overseas assets confiscated by the US government as compensation). Similarly, any Saudi national caught financing a terror group should have their assets frozen if and when that group commits an act of terror. Also, the dirty little secret of the Saudi oil industry is that they don't run it. The drilling, pumping and refining is done by westerners, mostly Americans. If the Saudis continue to finance terror, we can shut down their oil exports, which will cost us, but cripple them. The issuing of visas to the US and allied countries should be tied into cooperation, with anyone who finances terrorism subjected to a ban on travel to the US, or on any carrier that does business with the US. Finally, anybody, anywhere, any time, who is caught financing terror groups and refuses to answer in a US court should be indicted in absentia and any time that they leave Saudia Arabia, subjected to arrest and extradition in any country that we have a treaty with. True, the Europeans will howl, but ultimately, they will buckle if we show that we mean it. A policy that impacts the Saudi elites' bottom line and confines them to their hellhole of a country will hurt them more than shooting at them.

No, but shoving the heads of those people who back terror into the sand, and holding them down until they swallow some, will work wonders.

Oh. You mean like TOTAL WAR. That thing we should be doing but are not.:mad:

**Odysseus** · 11-10-2010, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by AmPat

Oh. You mean like TOTAL WAR. That thing we should be doing but are not.:mad:

Total War sounds too warlike for our elites. We have to couch it in euphemisms so that they don't have to deal with the reality. For example, instead of saying that we're burning their cities down around them, which sounds much too hostile for liberals, we can make it sound like a humanitarian mission. "Build a man a fire and you warm him for one night. Set a man on fire and you warm him for the rest of his life." Doesn't that sound nicer? :D

**ironhorsedriver** · 11-10-2010, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Total War sounds too warlike for our elites. We have to couch it in euphemisms so that they don't have to deal with the reality. For example, instead of saying that we're burning their cities down around them, which sounds much too hostile for liberals, we can make it sound like a humanitarian mission. "Build a man a fire and you warm him for one night. Set a man on fire and you warm him for the rest of his life." Doesn't that sound nicer? :D

I like that, I may have to use it sometime.