AWKWARD ZOMBIE

While a funny picture, it does bring up a good point. Would the "War On Terror," as it's called, have been over years ago if we had simply taken advantage of the pig phobia?

Of course, inevitably the human's rights groups would have been throwing a fight. But I can't help but think how many people's lives would have been saved if we were like "Hey, FYI, all our soldiers guns have bullets coated in pigs blood. And any terrorist bodies we recover, will be buried in a casket filled with pig entrails. You might wanna surrender if you don't want to go to hell."

On a side note, I seem to recall that Isreal actually does coat their bullets in pigs blood, which is one of the main reasons the country has yet to be wiped off the map. Of course, one of the results was that suicide bomb attacks became extremely popular against Isreal, so that their bodies could not be desecrated by pigs blood, since their bodies were already reduced to mush.

No. You just can't fight terror with terror. A "war on terror" isn't even a real war at all, considering the perceived victor is the one with the moral high-ground. Now, while the dude is awesome, you just can't condone that sort of stuff if you're a high-ranking officer. The only time I could see someone (even myself) going to that sort of extreme is if I was a helpless, low-ranking officer that seemed to find a way to gain a momentary upper hand. Also, my enemies would have had to killed some of my comrades/buds using tactics just as horrible.

It's awesome, but in the worst sense of the word.

To wage war is pretty much terror vs. terror. There's less people to kill if the people out to kill you are scared shitless about what you've done, what you might do, and decide to surrender. Sure, it's pretty gruesome, even unforgivable, to a point, but it's how war works. The most terrifying person wins.

When you think about it, you don't actually have to use pig's blood.

You just have to make them think you do.

In War, the way I see it, is of course you want your side's soldiers to survive.

but

Soldiers signed up for the war. On both sides. I want our soldiers to live, but I understand that if they die, they died doing their job.

When it comes to war, more than saving the lives of soldiers, I'm concerned about saving the lives of civilians. Moral ambiguity, change of perspective, whatever it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, both side's soldiers are soldiers; they signed up to fight. And both side's civilians are civilians; they didn't sign up to fight.

It's sad that people have to die in a war. But I'd rather see the soldiers crushed and demoralized, than either side's civilians die.

And I think, that we shouldn't pull punches against soldiers (State sponsored or not) who have no qualms about harming civilians on either side.

What do you do when a group seek war with you, and that group spits in the face of the Geneva Conventions?

On the note of "Pig's Blood" Tactics: don't you think the number of suicide bombings would actually increase at this, in our current situation? I mean, like Karilyn said, they're blowing themselves up to avoid that kind of thing.

I'm doing a bit of a thought dump right now.

Something that occurs to me, is the strangeness of how George W Bush, Obama, and the various media outlets (both liberal and conservative) have addressed the current war. Especially their heavy use of "catchphrases" which really hinders discussion of the subject.

Another thing that I can't help but think, is that this war isn't really new. From what I know about world history, while I can't really point at the starting place of this war (in part because it's such a non-traditional war), it's really been going on for a very long time, nearly, if not over a hundred years. Or at least, "they've" been at war with us. We've returned war against "them" twice, during the Persian Gulf War and now during the current "War on Terror" (as the catchphrase calls it).

The "they" has shapeshifted and reformed a lot over the years. To varying degrees it's been somewhat sponsored by various middle eastern countries. Of course, I'm talking about the various muslim extremist groups which have been infrequently attacking, but it's not as simple as calling it Al-Queda.

Al-Queda this, Al-Queda that. How many people know that Al-Qaeda has already shapeshifted and doesn't exist anymore? Seven years ago, Al-Queda merged with another group in Egypt named Al-Jihad, and renamed the merger as Qa'idat Al-Jihad. Of course, I dare you to find a major news-source that covered it, or still doesn't call them Al-Queda.

How do you fight a war against a group which isn't a nation? A group which will wage war, keep attacking you, with no chance for treaty? One that has shapeshifted countless times over the decades? One which keeps receiving under the table assistance from assorted governments?

In a way, it makes me think that for all we call them terrorists all the time, that it would almost be more accurate to call them an absurdly large mafia group.

Karilyn wrote:How do you fight a war against a group which isn't a nation? A group which will wage war, keep attacking you, with no chance for treaty? One that has shapeshifted countless times over the decades? One which keeps receiving under the table assistance from assorted governments?

You didn't include it, but I'm guessing there's no way to cut them off from that under the table assistance? Because that's what I'd say would be the best way to stop them.

Miss StarSeed wrote:You didn't include it, but I'm guessing there's no way to cut them off from that under the table assistance? Because that's what I'd say would be the best way to stop them.

Well that's part of what the current war was about.

But the cheddar comes from so many places, not all of which are government oriented. Trying to stop it is as difficult as trying to stop drug trafficking. It's an exercise in futility for all I can see.

I'm more familiar with history, and not so familiar with international politics. There's a lot of shit going on. I wonder why, really why, we went to war with Iraq? Sometimes I think it's because for political reasons, we couldn't invade Egypt, which is where at the time (and still currently) the "New Al-Queda" is located, and Bush got angry and took it out on Iraq.

I honestly have no idea. If you were asking someone else in my family, they'd say it was because of oil.

Miss StarSeed wrote:I honestly have no idea. If you were asking someone else in my family, they'd say it was because of oil.

May I be blunt? I've always saw that as bullshit. I generally lump the "We went into Iraq for the oil" people in the same group as the "Obama is not an American born citizen and is really a muslim terrorist in disguise" people.

It really just has no basis in reality. Iraq is hardly the biggest oil producing country in the world. Saudia Arabia holds that title. And if anything, the Iraq war has significantly harmed the American oil supply.

BANANA wrote:To wage war is pretty much terror vs. terror. There's less people to kill if the people out to kill you are scared shitless about what you've done, what you might do, and decide to surrender. Sure, it's pretty gruesome, even unforgivable, to a point, but it's how war works. The most terrifying person wins.

Exactly, BANANA. To use the words of Bertrand Russell, "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

Karilyn wrote:

Miss StarSeed wrote:I honestly have no idea. If you were asking someone else in my family, they'd say it was because of oil.

May I be blunt?

Yes. :U I didn't include myself as part of my family because I thought that was a pretty stupid excuse to go to war as well, especially given, as you pointed out, if it was for oil, why Iraq?

Miss StarSeed wrote:

Karilyn wrote:

Miss StarSeed wrote:I honestly have no idea. If you were asking someone else in my family, they'd say it was because of oil.

May I be blunt?

Yes. :U I didn't include myself as part of my family because I thought that was a pretty stupid excuse to go to war as well, especially given, as you pointed out, if it was for oil, why Iraq?

Americans like beating up people who wear towels on their heads.

I mean... it's not like they're really people, at least not like Americans are people... right?

So it's okay to blow them up for fun, and steal their oil at the same time.


I don't know what the media is feeding you guys over there in Americaland, but the rest of the world's media seems to think it was for oil - that, and a good ol' raghead bashing for good measure!

Because it makes absolutely no sense that it would be for oil?

It pretty much is such an absurd suggestion, that it really belongs in the category of conspiracy theories?

Which more or less goes into the category of "Fuck this bullshit media." It isn't any better if you talk about liberal media, or conservative media. National media or international media. I haven't seen a news source yet which isn't sensationalist and concerned primarily with ratings.