Jump to content

Curious layman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Curious layman

  1. https://www.space.com/universe-may-be-curved.html
  2. http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/new-class-low-mass-black-holes-07759.html
  3. To be fair, Al-Baghdadi didn't seem like the negotiating type. ISIS are nothing like the IRA. It's like comparing a street gang to Loz Zetas, in reality, their in a different league. Much more dangerous. If their not willing to work towards peace, then there's not much else to do. Attack is the best form of defence, as they say. I don't think it's the best strategy long term, but there's only so much we can do if they insist on planning atrocities.
  4. It's 'character building' Isn't this how everybody does it? This is how we move stuff in all the places I've worked. They'll generally get the staff to move as much as possible. I know were being paid, but the principle's still the same, it's cheaper, and we also know what everything is and what needs to be kept together, stuff like that. No-one likes doing it, but it makes sense.
  5. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/portal+circulation Any help?
  6. Some news. I'm not trying to make a statement, it's just something related to the OP. https://www.africanews.com/2019/11/01/is-names-new-leader-as-experts-assess-impact-in-africa/
  7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare
  8. Your being very hawkish, you sound like you think the American military is just going to kick ass, they won't. Believe it or not, there are other ways. It's been done before.
  9. No, based on these examples, we know their ineffective.
  10. I don't know whether to laugh or cry? Iraq and Afghanistan were both disasters, It's been 18 years since 911 and there are more terror groups attacking us now than there was then. Yeah, were really kicking there ass. They won't do this again.
  11. Your being delusional. Do you actually think you can win? Has history taught you nothing?
  12. Who you going to negotiate with? If you take out the entire leadership you'll just end up with a situation where you have several dozen smaller terror groups, all with different agendas, and ideologies. It will make it more difficult. WTF...
  13. Yes, the people just under him, his lieutenants, his money men, cut off publicity, Invest more money in infrastructure in those areas, take his support away.
  14. Whack-a-moles great, don't get me wrong, theirs a certain satisfaction knowing we can take them out, and Delta Force are pretty badass aren't they? SEAL team six and the SAS too. I just think it might be better to be abit more selective with who we whack. A nuclear strike - I would secretly look forward to watching that.
  15. https://www.mivision.com.au/2016/01/australia-s-bionic-eye/
  16. Ok, sorry about the delay, I've got stuff going on, should we target the leaders? It depends what we're trying to accomplish, has killing this guy actually done any harm to them, from what I've read, no, they had a new leader within 24 hours ( 'the destroyer'), he's already promised revenge. Short term good, we got one, medium to long term, pointless, this 'destroyer' will have different ways of doing things, we have no idea where he is, he will most likely change the leadership around. It hasn't harmed them at all. It's like the drug war in Mexico, it just changes things, usually making it worse and harder to stop. If we knew where the other guy was, would it not of been better to use this to our advantage, put him under surveillance, and to take out his most important people, making him ineffective and more likely to negotiate? The point of the IRA and FARC, and Israel and Palestine too, was whether we like it or not, the military, nor their bombings, is going to win this war. At some point we're going to have to negotiate with each other, and like with the IRA and FARC, its will have to include letting them get away with crimes they've committed. We can't do that if our strategy is to kill their leaders. If we keep killing their leaders, it will be never ending.
  17. 'In this operation, however, we specifically went in with helicopters and put Delta Force boots on the ground to avoid the very civilian deaths and uncertainties you lament' - how cool, I'm sure it will make a great film, and I cant wait for the book. (we'll just ignore the children that died) Ever heard of the IRA or FARC. There's been huge progress made recently, and guess what? it wasn't because we kept killing their leaders. At no point in this war on terror has killing our 'enemy' done anything but make them more determined to fight. We've been killing them for years now, IT. DOESNT. WORK. But hey, as long as it makes you feel good.
  18. I didn't say do nothing, but having drones scaring the shit out of the local population, and killing innocent civilians in the process just makes it easier to recruit new terrorists. We're using terror to defeat terror. Since 911 the terrorists have gotten bigger and stronger. This strategy isn't and won't work.
  19. Disagree, this war on terror reminds me of the war on drugs. All the leaders of the cartels are eventually arrested/killed, but the cartels have become stronger, bigger, more violent. They've learnt and adapted and become harder to stop. Its the same with the terrorists, they just adapt- 'lone wolves' Ive no idea what to do instead, but this just seems counter productive and pointless.
  20. I agree, it's like the Mexican cartels, you take out a leader and the next leader is even more violent than the last one. In the long run you make it worse. It's not a very good strategy. Maybe better to focus on the leaders key men instead.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.