Do we need Swordfish - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aphex140 · 11-20-2003, 05:31 AM

Do you think we need a swordfish organisation. Such as the 'fictional' character of swordfish.

I think we should pursue the terrorists pro-actively. I do not understand the outcry about the SAS in Ireland or Mosad in Arabia.

I am aware that a ‘terrorist’ to one person is a ‘freedom fighter’
to another, but the key word is 'Fighter'.

They are will to send people to their deaths and should die for their cause.

This links with the Brits in Cuba, they we following the cause and should pay the price - depending on what they were doing whilst caught or had done.

If they were actively involved with terrorists then pay the price- if they were just religious toursits then judge as such.

I know that such as thing is subject to abuse,but ther is no such thing as a free lunch.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2003, 06:48 AM

I definetily liked the whole idea such an organization. Thing is though if we are doing assasinations and such we have organizations and people that can do it anonymously for us. Also If America were to have such an organization we would be big time hypocrits, because here we are getting down on all these nations for state sponsored terrorism, which all Swordfish really was (albeit unbeknownst to the government).

homerhop · 11-20-2003, 07:19 AM

The problem with Northern Ireland is that the actions of the Brit forces was not a million miles away from the provisionals.
There is going to be alot of tribunals into the actions of the crown force and their involvment with loyalist terrorist groups.

But as you said one mans terrorist.....

aphex140 · 11-20-2003, 07:26 AM

I agree the actions of the brits was along the lines of the provs etc, but hopefully with regard to avoiding uninvolved parties, such as shoopers etc.
A bomb can be controlled to minimise the spread of its effects, unlike ones designed have a max kill radius.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-20-2003, 07:30 AM

Could you guys explain swordfish a little? I'm not in the know. I've heard the term but never any details.

aphex140 · 11-20-2003, 07:56 AM

Swordfish was the title of a film staring John Travolta and Hally Berry, where he played a former government undercover operative who decided to steal CIA ? Money to fund a war on terrorist via assassination.
A sort of lack of political will to do so, so he took it on himself.
Good film (love the idea of receiving a B.J while operating a computer {slipping in to tilted sexuality}).

Conclamo Ludus · 11-20-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aphex140
Swordfish was the title of a film staring John Travolta and Hally Berry, where he played a former government undercover operative who decided to steal CIA ? Money to fund a war on terrorist via assassination.
A sort of lack of political will to do so, so he took it on himself.
Good film (love the idea of receiving a B.J while operating a computer {slipping in to tilted sexuality}).

I was afraid you were talking about that movie. I thought it was really poorly done. A couple great scenes though...Halle Berry...heh heh.

The concepts were interesting there. I forgot all about the whole purpose of Travolta's robbery. I haven't seen it since the theatres. Its a cool concept, but it would have the horrible potential to blow up in the face of whoever ran it.

wrongfullyaccuzd · 11-20-2003, 03:25 PM

ever since that movie came out my friend and i have been talking about it...he's always loved the idea and at first i was a little wary, but it sounds good to me. even if i never knew about it, which is the way it should be, i think. although i'd like to be a part.

debaser · 11-20-2003, 04:02 PM

Terrible idea.

First off, we do not assassinate people, that is one of the things that separates us from the scum we fight.

Second, do you really want a military organization doing its own thing outside the control of the government?

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
Terrible idea.

First off, we do not assassinate people, that is one of the things that separates us from the scum we fight.

Second, do you really want a military organization doing its own thing outside the control of the government?

I'm going to have to disagree debaser. It might not be the humane or "moral" way to operate, but if it comes to national security the government should take any means necessary on CREDIBLE and KNOWN terrorists. It was like when the FDR white house coordinated with the mafia in New York to keep the gestapo out the harbor. Terrorists would hurt us anyway they can, and we don't owe it to them to play fair, because they sure as hell aren't.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I'm going to have to disagree debaser. It might not be the humane or "moral" way to operate, but if it comes to national security the government should take any means necessary on CREDIBLE and KNOWN terrorists. It was like when the FDR white house coordinated with the mafia in New York to keep the gestapo out the harbor. Terrorists or any enemy of the state (in the context of a foreign threat) would hurt us anyway they can, and we don't owe it to them to play fair, because they sure as hell aren't.

Macheath · 11-20-2003, 08:11 PM

Yeah, America might go for some kind of dodgy clandestine organisation and probably already does.

But how quickly would Karl Rove turn the "swordfish" into canned tuna for not towing the Republican Party line?

Blind ideology and high level intelligence would be a nasty, nasty combination.

HarmlessRabbit · 11-20-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
Terrible idea.

First off, we do not assassinate people, that is one of the things that separates us from the scum we fight.

Second, do you really want a military organization doing its own thing outside the control of the government?

Hrm? What do call it when we use an unmanned drone in a foreign country to kill a foreign citizen without a trial?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

Whether the measure was justified or not (and I don't really want to discuss that topic), it was absolutely assassination.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2003, 08:28 PM

Thing about Swordfish was that they worked without support of the government, and the government (except for that one senator) didn't even know that they existed. They were without politcal influence and were "the ultimate patriots".

inkriminator · 11-20-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Hrm? What do call it when we use an unmanned drone in a foreign country to kill a foreign citizen without a trial?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

Whether the measure was justified or not (and I don't really want to discuss that topic), it was absolutely assassination.

I believe U.S. (And International) laws protect the leaders of country from "assasination" not ordinary citizens. That said, there have been numerous attempts by many American presidencies that sought to kill foreign leaders, but they were not officially recognized.

aphex140 · 11-21-2003, 12:57 AM

I have to say guys that the American view things is on an American level. I agree I used the name swordfish, but this type of organisation would have to have global flavour. The fact there is Interpol, CIA etc that operate with government influence not together.
A united front of nations, operating with out the constraints of worry about being voted into power and the obvious corruption this leads to.
I can see why America does this. Organisations such a NATO, which I support the existence of do seem to ‘Fanny’ around rather than making a decision and taking action, leading to a loss of effectiveness – a loss of the target (I feel a RANT coming on). Iraq is a classic of this the French having an economic interest with the previous government etc, mind you so did America when the Iraq-Iran war was on .
Kill the leaders and organisers leave the people to get on with their lives.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-21-2003, 06:28 AM

Swordfish, whether or not it was an international effort or a national effort would be just another terrorist organization. Blind idealogues "super-patriots" taking any means necessary to push an agenda. It would become far too corrupt, far too dangerous, and would probably end up on our terror watchlist anyway. I don't think it could be done, and I don't think it should be done. You would have to have too much trust in the individual and without any kind of oversight, they would know that they could do anything they wanted.

We definitely couldn't have Travolta run it, they'd all be scientology freedom fighters.

aphex140 · 11-21-2003, 07:10 AM

i had forgotten about that didn't he do a film as a alien based on his beliefs and wasn't it crap. Did not see it my self althoug I do enjoy sci-fi.
Can even think of what it is called.

happyraul · 11-21-2003, 07:32 AM

I think such an organization would be a terrible idea that would be counter-productive. Rather than resort to violence as an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks, we should instead try to understand how are policies are detrimental to other nations, and take the neccessary actions to remedy the situation. First of all we need to stop with our imperialistic tendencies and genuinely share our wealth with those we have exploited without making them dependent on us.

But thats not likely to happen, and the only outcome I can forsee is an increase in terrorism against the justly vilified US, which will lead to increasing limitations of personal freedoms in the US until the breaking point of revolution in a few hundred years. I would not be surprised if the same sort of atrocities that plague a lot of dictatorships happen in the US (mass executions, "dissapearing" people), all in the name of fighting terrorism, once people begin to realize that it is their own government's policies, driven by men looking to further their own individual interests by catering to big capitalists, that are the root of terrorist acts against them. After all, human rights abuses are just fine with us as long as our economic interests are preserved.

aphex140 · 11-21-2003, 08:11 AM

I agree war sucks! But you can not reason with a rabid dog.

Can that be done with fanatics especially relgious ones.

Surely it should be the people who decide as a majority and take action rather than being the victims of so called liberators.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-21-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aphex140
i had forgotten about that didn't he do a film as a alien based on his beliefs and wasn't it crap. Did not see it my self althoug I do enjoy sci-fi.
Can even think of what it is called.

Battlefield: Earth
Sorry to jump off topic. But yeah its terrible. Check out TFP Entertainment under the thread Worst Movie You Have Ever Seen. This has probably been mentioned the most. I like to call it Battlefield: Scientology.

aphex140 · 11-21-2003, 08:14 AM

On my way it funny how dislike can often motivate more than liking
cheers Conclamo Ludus

Mr. Mojo · 11-21-2003, 01:41 PM

You have to admit, its a great little rant:

<b>Stanley:</b> War? Who are we at war with?

<b>Gabriel:</b> Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

debaser · 11-21-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I'm going to have to disagree debaser. It might not be the humane or "moral" way to operate, but if it comes to national security the government should take any means necessary on CREDIBLE and KNOWN terrorists. It was like when the FDR white house coordinated with the mafia in New York to keep the gestapo out the harbor. Terrorists would hurt us anyway they can, and we don't owe it to them to play fair, because they sure as hell aren't.

But who is to say that the efforts would only be aimed at "CREDIBLE and KNOWN terrorists"? Where is the oversight? The whole thing reeks of Apocalypse Now...

XenuHubbard · 11-21-2003, 10:17 PM

This thread scares me. But since I, my family, and my wife's family, all belong to the group of people that could be marked as "disposable", not being American and all, I guess my input in this thread will make no difference.

What scares me the most is, that if a 9/11 happens again today, I will not care much. Because of this thread. That scares me the most, when I think about it.

Mephisto2 · 11-21-2003, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aphex140
I do not understand the outcry about the SAS in Ireland or Mosad in Arabia.

Then you have proved you don't know what you're talking about.

You ask if an organization should exist that acts outside the law, assassinating "targets" with impunity. Then you go on to say you don't understand the outcry about similiar organisations in the real world.

How about I just come over to your house, steal your car, rape your dog and shit on your lawn? I can't, because it's against the law.

Law is what seperates us (even you buddy) from the terrorists. Once you abandon it, you have become that which you hate most. And the terrorists have succeeded in one of their aims.

I'm astounded such a question should be asked. It shows an alarming lack of understanding of the realities of geo-politics, ethics, morals, international law and the potential repercussions of "Hollywood style" nonesense being taken seriously.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-22-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
Then you have proved you don't know what you're talking about.

You ask if an organization should exist that acts outside the law, assassinating "targets" with impunity. Then you go on to say you don't understand the outcry about similiar organisations in the real world.

How about I just come over to your house, steal your car, rape your dog and shit on your lawn? I can't, because it's against the law.

Law is what seperates us (even you buddy) from the terrorists. Once you abandon it, you have become that which you hate most. And the terrorists have succeeded in one of their aims.

I'm astounded such a question should be asked. It shows an alarming lack of understanding of the realities of geo-politics, ethics, morals, international law and the potential repercussions of "Hollywood style" nonesense being taken seriously.

Mr Mephisto

Why should we have to play fair? Why should we have to enter a fight with one arm behind our back??? Do we owe it to them? People who would target innocent civilians for the sake of their own agenda are not welcome to the protection of the law, and should be disposed off when ever the oppurtunity arises.

debaser · 11-22-2003, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Why should we have to play fair? Why should we have to enter a fight with one arm behind our back??? Do we owe it to them? People who would target innocent civilians for the sake of their own agenda are not welcome to the protection of the law, and should be disposed off when ever the oppurtunity arises.

Why do we consider ourselves better than the terrorists in the first place?

What the US is doing now is well within the scope of international law. What you are suggesting is abhorant to what this country stands for.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-22-2003, 11:34 AM

I am better then the terrorists because I don't think that I am justified in killing innocent civilians for the sake of (insert random cause here). I am not some punk made bitch spoiled rich boy who got brainwashed by some psycho ass cleric who thinks its ok to kill people because they live differently. People need to get away from the bleeding heart mentality that "terrorists are people too" or "don't kill those evil men who would kill us in a heatbeat, lets learn to understand them..." or "Maybe they are justified in killing innocent civilians, it probably is OUR fault they do it".

debaser · 11-22-2003, 12:03 PM

I am not justifying any of those behaviors. I simply insist that any actions we take be consistant with the rule of law in this country.

Kostya · 11-22-2003, 07:56 PM

Firstly as Mr. Mojo's quote shows, the idea of Swordfish isn't controlled well thought out and contained assassination, it is in fact fighting terrorism with greater terrorism.

Sanctioning the idea of nuking a city over the death of an American tourist is ridiculous. It employs the same macabre reasoning of Osama Bin Laden an Co, which is the idea that you can target innocent civilians to place pressure on your enemy, by acting in such a way as to place at least some of the responsibility on the enemy and then raising the stakes with increased violence. Frankly, what's the point of fighting against terrorists if you resort to terrorism to do so.

If however you are talking about a less extreme version of fighting terrorism through assassination I disagree with this also. Fighting terrorism is not about eliminating individuals, killing Osama Bin Laden will not end terrorism, in fact it is impossible to end terrorism through killing, unless of course you make it an outright genocide. Assassination has not helped Israel's situation and Mossad's been doing it for decades, it has failed to stem the violent attacks on Israeli civilians.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-22-2003, 08:16 PM

People are always quick to dismiss any sort of violence as a course of action, but yet they never purpose something in it's place.

Kostya, your example of the Mossad's ineffectiveness is very poor. Peace accords fail all the time, so does that mean that pursuing peace is an impossible means to an end???

MSD · 11-22-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
What the US is doing now is well within the scope of international law.

Invading and occupying Iraq in a first-strike war without UN approval was a violation of international law. Invading and occupying Afghanistan in retaliation for allwoing Al Quaeda to stay may have been justified and overlooked by most people, but it was also a violation of international law. Our continuing occupation of both countries is a violation of international law.

Kostya · 11-23-2003, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Kostya, your example of the Mossad's ineffectiveness is very poor. Peace accords fail all the time, so does that mean that pursuing peace is an impossible means to an end???

So you admit that Mossad's assassinations have been ineffective?

Well that's all my point was, that assassination doesn't work.

Of course peace accords aren't used by anyone with terrorist groups, because they'd be somewhat ineffectual. Assassination of terrorists, by the dozen hasn't helped either. I didn't say I knew what the answer was, I just said assassination hasn't helped anyone.

debaser · 11-23-2003, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Kostya, your example of the Mossad's ineffectiveness is very poor.

How about Hamas then. There's your Swordfish for ya. Sort of backfired, no?

debaser · 11-23-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
Invading and occupying Iraq in a first-strike war without UN approval was a violation of international law. Invading and occupying Afghanistan in retaliation for allwoing Al Quaeda to stay may have been justified and overlooked by most people, but it was also a violation of international law. Our continuing occupation of both countries is a violation of international law.

Please show me the law that was violated in either case.

happyraul · 11-23-2003, 11:53 AM

I don't really know much about the law, but I can tell you that given the fact that all of the reasons given to us for going to war in Iraq were not even justified, it was morally wrong to attack that country and involve ourselves in their affairs. If anyone truly believes that our attack was anything other than the US protecting economic interests at the cost of angering a lot of people, then you are either really naive or simply deluding yourself. The major difference between this operation and the one where we overthrew a democratically eleceted Chilean president when we feared for our economic interests is that the operation in Chile was carried out in secret, by the CIA. That wouldn't have worked in Iraq because Saddam is much less vulnerable than a constatutionalist president who trusted his country.

debaser · 11-23-2003, 03:42 PM

I am not defending or attacking the war in Iraq, but morally wrong != legally wrong.

happyraul · 11-23-2003, 06:28 PM

you are correct debaser, but morally wrong is worse than legally wrong, so even if it was a legal thing, that in no way justifies it, and whether it is legal or not is really irrelevant, since the US shapes the law to benefit itself anyway.

aphex140 · 11-24-2003, 01:19 AM

Mr Mephisto

"How about I just come over to your house, steal your car, rape your dog and shit on your lawn? I can't, because it's against the law."

About the following, tha randomness of the act would mean that the 'law' most proberly would not catch you. ( Although the police are ment to uphold the law and there effectiveness is for discussion in this thread).

I would say if I was there I would take all steps possible to defend myself and my family and property.

The law is only effective if you agree to subscribe to it !

I feel that you are expressing your opion becouse you have not ever fell threatened by what has occured in the world.

That yes you might have the moral high ground, but hell there seems a lot of us down here.

I think that removing innocs from danger, such as car bombs etc is an objective to be strived for.

11-20-2003, 05:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	Do we need Swordfish Do you think we need a swordfish organisation. Such as the 'fictional' character of swordfish. I think we should pursue the terrorists pro-actively. I do not understand the outcry about the SAS in Ireland or Mosad in Arabia. I am aware that a ‘terrorist’ to one person is a ‘freedom fighter’ to another, but the key word is 'Fighter'. They are will to send people to their deaths and should die for their cause. This links with the Brits in Cuba, they we following the cause and should pay the price - depending on what they were doing whilst caught or had done. If they were actively involved with terrorists then pay the price- if they were just religious toursits then judge as such. I know that such as thing is subject to abuse,but ther is no such thing as a free lunch. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-20-2003, 06:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I definetily liked the whole idea such an organization. Thing is though if we are doing assasinations and such we have organizations and people that can do it anonymously for us. Also If America were to have such an organization we would be big time hypocrits, because here we are getting down on all these nations for state sponsored terrorism, which all Swordfish really was (albeit unbeknownst to the government). __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-20-2003, 07:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	The problem with Northern Ireland is that the actions of the Brit forces was not a million miles away from the provisionals. There is going to be alot of tribunals into the actions of the crown force and their involvment with loyalist terrorist groups. But as you said one mans terrorist..... __________________ its evolution baby

11-20-2003, 07:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	I agree the actions of the brits was along the lines of the provs etc, but hopefully with regard to avoiding uninvolved parties, such as shoopers etc. A bomb can be controlled to minimise the spread of its effects, unlike ones designed have a max kill radius. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-20-2003, 07:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Could you guys explain swordfish a little? I'm not in the know. I've heard the term but never any details. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

11-20-2003, 07:56 AM	#6 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	Swordfish was the title of a film staring John Travolta and Hally Berry, where he played a former government undercover operative who decided to steal CIA ? Money to fund a war on terrorist via assassination. A sort of lack of political will to do so, so he took it on himself. Good film (love the idea of receiving a B.J while operating a computer {slipping in to tilted sexuality}). __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-20-2003, 03:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
wrongfullyaccuzd Addict Location: NoVA	ever since that movie came out my friend and i have been talking about it...he's always loved the idea and at first i was a little wary, but it sounds good to me. even if i never knew about it, which is the way it should be, i think. although i'd like to be a part.

11-20-2003, 04:02 PM	#9 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Terrible idea. First off, we do not assassinate people, that is one of the things that separates us from the scum we fight. Second, do you really want a military organization doing its own thing outside the control of the government? __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

11-20-2003, 08:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Yeah, America might go for some kind of dodgy clandestine organisation and probably already does. But how quickly would Karl Rove turn the "swordfish" into canned tuna for not towing the Republican Party line? Blind ideology and high level intelligence would be a nasty, nasty combination.

11-20-2003, 08:28 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Thing about Swordfish was that they worked without support of the government, and the government (except for that one senator) didn't even know that they existed. They were without politcal influence and were "the ultimate patriots". __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-21-2003, 12:57 AM	#16 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	I have to say guys that the American view things is on an American level. I agree I used the name swordfish, but this type of organisation would have to have global flavour. The fact there is Interpol, CIA etc that operate with government influence not together. A united front of nations, operating with out the constraints of worry about being voted into power and the obvious corruption this leads to. I can see why America does this. Organisations such a NATO, which I support the existence of do seem to ‘Fanny’ around rather than making a decision and taking action, leading to a loss of effectiveness – a loss of the target (I feel a RANT coming on). Iraq is a classic of this the French having an economic interest with the previous government etc, mind you so did America when the Iraq-Iran war was on . Kill the leaders and organisers leave the people to get on with their lives. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-21-2003, 06:28 AM	#17 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Swordfish, whether or not it was an international effort or a national effort would be just another terrorist organization. Blind idealogues "super-patriots" taking any means necessary to push an agenda. It would become far too corrupt, far too dangerous, and would probably end up on our terror watchlist anyway. I don't think it could be done, and I don't think it should be done. You would have to have too much trust in the individual and without any kind of oversight, they would know that they could do anything they wanted. We definitely couldn't have Travolta run it, they'd all be scientology freedom fighters. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

11-21-2003, 07:10 AM	#18 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	i had forgotten about that didn't he do a film as a alien based on his beliefs and wasn't it crap. Did not see it my self althoug I do enjoy sci-fi. Can even think of what it is called. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-21-2003, 07:32 AM	#19 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	I think such an organization would be a terrible idea that would be counter-productive. Rather than resort to violence as an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks, we should instead try to understand how are policies are detrimental to other nations, and take the neccessary actions to remedy the situation. First of all we need to stop with our imperialistic tendencies and genuinely share our wealth with those we have exploited without making them dependent on us. But thats not likely to happen, and the only outcome I can forsee is an increase in terrorism against the justly vilified US, which will lead to increasing limitations of personal freedoms in the US until the breaking point of revolution in a few hundred years. I would not be surprised if the same sort of atrocities that plague a lot of dictatorships happen in the US (mass executions, "dissapearing" people), all in the name of fighting terrorism, once people begin to realize that it is their own government's policies, driven by men looking to further their own individual interests by catering to big capitalists, that are the root of terrorist acts against them. After all, human rights abuses are just fine with us as long as our economic interests are preserved.

11-21-2003, 08:11 AM	#20 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	I agree war sucks! But you can not reason with a rabid dog. Can that be done with fanatics especially relgious ones. Surely it should be the people who decide as a majority and take action rather than being the victims of so called liberators. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-21-2003, 08:14 AM	#22 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	On my way it funny how dislike can often motivate more than liking cheers Conclamo Ludus __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]

11-21-2003, 01:41 PM	#23 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	You have to admit, its a great little rant: <b>Stanley:</b> War? Who are we at war with? <b>Gabriel:</b> Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans. __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

11-21-2003, 10:17 PM	#25 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	This thread scares me. But since I, my family, and my wife's family, all belong to the group of people that could be marked as "disposable", not being American and all, I guess my input in this thread will make no difference. What scares me the most is, that if a 9/11 happens again today, I will not care much. Because of this thread. That scares me the most, when I think about it. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

11-22-2003, 11:34 AM	#29 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I am better then the terrorists because I don't think that I am justified in killing innocent civilians for the sake of (insert random cause here). I am not some punk made bitch spoiled rich boy who got brainwashed by some psycho ass cleric who thinks its ok to kill people because they live differently. People need to get away from the bleeding heart mentality that "terrorists are people too" or "don't kill those evil men who would kill us in a heatbeat, lets learn to understand them..." or "Maybe they are justified in killing innocent civilians, it probably is OUR fault they do it". __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-22-2003, 12:03 PM	#30 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	I am not justifying any of those behaviors. I simply insist that any actions we take be consistant with the rule of law in this country. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

11-22-2003, 07:56 PM	#31 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Firstly as Mr. Mojo's quote shows, the idea of Swordfish isn't controlled well thought out and contained assassination, it is in fact fighting terrorism with greater terrorism. Sanctioning the idea of nuking a city over the death of an American tourist is ridiculous. It employs the same macabre reasoning of Osama Bin Laden an Co, which is the idea that you can target innocent civilians to place pressure on your enemy, by acting in such a way as to place at least some of the responsibility on the enemy and then raising the stakes with increased violence. Frankly, what's the point of fighting against terrorists if you resort to terrorism to do so. If however you are talking about a less extreme version of fighting terrorism through assassination I disagree with this also. Fighting terrorism is not about eliminating individuals, killing Osama Bin Laden will not end terrorism, in fact it is impossible to end terrorism through killing, unless of course you make it an outright genocide. Assassination has not helped Israel's situation and Mossad's been doing it for decades, it has failed to stem the violent attacks on Israeli civilians.

11-22-2003, 08:16 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	People are always quick to dismiss any sort of violence as a course of action, but yet they never purpose something in it's place. Kostya, your example of the Mossad's ineffectiveness is very poor. Peace accords fail all the time, so does that mean that pursuing peace is an impossible means to an end??? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-23-2003, 11:53 AM	#37 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	I don't really know much about the law, but I can tell you that given the fact that all of the reasons given to us for going to war in Iraq were not even justified, it was morally wrong to attack that country and involve ourselves in their affairs. If anyone truly believes that our attack was anything other than the US protecting economic interests at the cost of angering a lot of people, then you are either really naive or simply deluding yourself. The major difference between this operation and the one where we overthrew a democratically eleceted Chilean president when we feared for our economic interests is that the operation in Chile was carried out in secret, by the CIA. That wouldn't have worked in Iraq because Saddam is much less vulnerable than a constatutionalist president who trusted his country.

11-23-2003, 03:42 PM	#38 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	I am not defending or attacking the war in Iraq, but morally wrong != legally wrong. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

11-23-2003, 06:28 PM	#39 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	you are correct debaser, but morally wrong is worse than legally wrong, so even if it was a legal thing, that in no way justifies it, and whether it is legal or not is really irrelevant, since the US shapes the law to benefit itself anyway.

11-24-2003, 01:19 AM	#40 (permalink)
aphex140 Psycho Location: northamptonshire	Mr Mephisto "How about I just come over to your house, steal your car, rape your dog and shit on your lawn? I can't, because it's against the law." About the following, tha randomness of the act would mean that the 'law' most proberly would not catch you. ( Although the police are ment to uphold the law and there effectiveness is for discussion in this thread). I would say if I was there I would take all steps possible to defend myself and my family and property. The law is only effective if you agree to subscribe to it ! I feel that you are expressing your opion becouse you have not ever fell threatened by what has occured in the world. That yes you might have the moral high ground, but hell there seems a lot of us down here. I think that removing innocs from danger, such as car bombs etc is an objective to be strived for. __________________ Computers allow us to make more mistakes at a faster rate than any other man-made thing, with the exception of handguns and tequila. [/QUOTE=BAMF]Do they role a die, with a 1/3 chance of being flacid?[/QUOTE]