A simple poll...

[Sir Turylon]

select one option.. one option only. no hate, or anti-anything... if you have a problem with that... don't respond. Any flames will be disregarded and forwarded to a mod for editing or deletion at their own discretion.

What is your opinion on the matter. If you respond with a post/reply, keep it simple, short and to the point. Any rambling on about an off-topic matter will be dis-regarded and possibly submited for deletion/editing at the mods discretion.

thank you and have a :) day.

PS. this poll will close after 14 days, regardless.

[Ledhead]

I don't understand the term "non-coms".

[Dobber]

A simple poll which no one understands.

[Sir Turylon]

I don't understand the term "non-coms".

non-coms is short for non-combatants. IE. civilians.

[Cork2]

Strike back of Cours. run out there and kill them with your boot or thumb.
"this is my boot son and it will fit up your *** if the proper amount of force is applyed"

[fallen_saint]

lol, yea cork took the words out of my mouth, it's that texan in me gets me sometimes lol

[Ben Nevis]

too bad you couldn't make a real poll. This is just too silly.

[Nike]

Silly you say...

I voted for strike back! Especially after another Bulgarian tragedy (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=36958)! ;( :angry:

[Angryminer]

Two things:
1. Punish the guilty.
2. Find out the reason for the crime and find a solution for the problem.

Angryminer

[Redback]

Just a point about my vote-
It also applies to the Military in any conflict,its not only terroists that, wrongly,target civilians and other non-combatants. :sad:

I also despise any Army that also targets civilians.
In the Australian army it is against-"The rules of engagement"to engage non-combatants.
And any orders to do so are not followed.

Certain countries have armies that are just as bad as the terroists-imo :cheers: .

[timurlenk]

strike back ist the very best solution.

so the terrorists have a a reason to strike back.
then you can strike back.
then the terrorists have to strike back.
so you are forced to strike back.
that leads to a new strike back by terrorists.
now you you have no other choice: strike back!!!
and they strike back, in the name of their dead children and other collateral damages.
revenge for the non-com victims!
strike back!
strike back!
and again - strike back, that will solve the problem...


has anyone of "strike back" party observed the situation in israel? in afghanistan, in irak, worldwide? did "strike back" ever solve a poblem?
if you think "yes", talk about it with the tooth fairy" :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Nike]

Then I guess we should tell them "Come on, kill us! We don't want to live! You're free to kill us! Allah Akbar! Kill us!" Tea and Cookies will only show them that they can do whatever they want!

[Kuno of Gersenau]

Well, I don't understand what do you mean with tea and cookies exactly...

But I have to agree with timurlenk, it's not a good solution to strike back, but I find it better than do nothing...

I miss one point: What i read and heard is, that most of the terrorists come from very poor families. Clear Bin Laden, etc. not, but THEY don't give their live for a terror-attack, they only command it.
So the question, why do the terrorists think it's the best way to kill temselves and to take some poor people with them to hell. Why do they think the live after the death will be the best what they can except? Why do they hate the Western Countrys?

Well, the Western countrys didn't do very much positive things to the Arabic world. Britains and French made frontiers without looking at ethnic, religious and cultural reasons...All the western countrys take the oil from them and make some sheiks and emirs to very rich persons. BUT very much people stay poor and live under dictators who are supported by the west, because it's easy to make business with them...think about this, also Saddam was once very sympathic for the western countrys...

I know this will in the near future not happen, maybe it will never happen, but why don't look that also the common muslim people think: "Hey, I've a good live, why should I kill myself and other unknow people with a bomb?"

But I think this will be a dream forever...:(

PS: Maybe you mean this with the last point, but for me it sounds a bit like "Give the terrorist-leaders as much money as they want". maybe it sounds only so for me because of my English-knowledge. (I had to look the words of the 4th point in a dictionary)

PPS: I don't vote for any point.

[timurlenk]

Then I guess we should tell them "Come on, kill us! We don't want to live! You're free to kill us! Allah Akbar! Kill us!" Tea and Cookies will only show them that they can do whatever they want!

i never said that.
i tried to say: just to strike back never ever solved a problem.
wanna solve the problem or wanna satisfy your thirst for revenge?



EDIT
btw, turns out to be another political thread...

[Ledhead]

Terrorists should be fought hard!
I think a more intersting poll would have been; "What is terrorism?" and "Is there a thing called state-terrorism?", and not just the right of might?
I'm very curious what this threads author purpose with this thread is and what his conclusion will be...
Like Timurlenk and Angryminer already said, just to strike back never solved any problem.
What makes some people decide that killing innocent will help their cause?
And they are willing to die for their cause, does anyone think that going after them to kill them will prevent them in any way, some of them will always get away and strike back another day.
They just have come to the conclusion that they have nothing left to lose...they will come out like weed through asfalt if you don't go to the root of the problem in question.
Just because you are the strongest military power in the world means you can solve every problem with force. Remember David and Goliath...
Stop protecting your own economic and political interests outside your borders with force and you will see that 9/10 of all terrorism will disapear, IMO.

[Hector]

i would solve the problem that is causing it

[Sir Turylon]

okay. everyone cool off for a bit.

let's point out some history facts here based on terrorism and the whole "anti-west" feelings.

First of all, they did not start when the Latin kingdoms went on a crusade against the arabic kingdoms around palestine. They started years before with "anti-Rome" feelings. The region was hit hard by economic regression and political turmoil after Rome lost the abilit to control it's empire. Islam was founded and it "gave people hope." Funny thing is... The religion also states that it is okay to kill any who do not confess allah to be God. (don't believe me, go research it some more) Anti-western feelings were the basis of Saladin's campaign to "push the infidel Latins back into the sea." He did not, however, reject the compassion and sense of right found in his beliefs. He allowed any Latins, who would surrender peacefully and return home, to go unharmed through asia minor and back into Europe.

so, none of this... crusade as a reason. okay?


@Timulenk
has anyone of "strike back" party observed the situation in israel? in afghanistan, in irak, worldwide? did "strike back" ever solve a poblem?

I'll name three times when "strike back" worked. Napoleon, Hitler, Hirohito. all three times other nations struck back. all three times they succeded in turning a wrong back around to a right.

BTW, the warAmerica is in against terrorism is not to "strike back." It is to RID the world of terrorism Think it can't be done? possibly it cannot. Will we use only military to do it... no. The best weapon against terrorism is freedom. Freedom to choose, Freedom to learn, Freedom to understand. Right now, terrorists are bred in countries that are not "free of a singular mentality."

Achtung! Keep it civil. a few posts are approaching the line where they will be reported.

PS. BTW. #3 option is blatantly typed. "Invite them over for tea and cookies" means.. Invite the terrorists into your country and treat them like royalty, letting them do whatever they want and not offending them in any way. This point was a deliberate attempt to see if people can understand the whole conept of "inviting terrorism into your country as a place to shelter them and socialize with them."

PPS. Looks like #1 is mostly those that have agreed with war in Iraq and #3 voters are those that want oppose the war on terrorism. (post a nice reply if you agree with the war on terrorism but voted for inviting them over for tea and cookies)

PPPS. Yes, this poll also had a hidden meaning... to see exactly how many of you can understand fully the euphamisms that some of us Americans use. *laughs evily, you're all my guinea pigs!* :go:

[Hector]

The religion also states that it is okay to kill any who do not confess allah to be God

this is bull****

[timurlenk]

1. politics will stay out.

okay. everyone cool off for a bit.
The religion also states that it is okay to kill any who do not confess allah to be God. (don't believe me, go research it some more)

sorry thats not true. (although some people - on each side - argue it)
tell us your source.




@Timulenk
I'll name three times when "strike back" worked. Napoleon, Hitler, Hirohito. all three times other nations struck back. all three times they succeded in turning a wrong back around to a right.

all 3 were no terrorists. they started wars. we talked about terrorists.

[Sir Turylon]

this is bull****

sorry hector. I forgot you were islamic... okay. if it is.. post a quote from the Koran stating that it is not okay to kill those who do not confess allah as God. I'll post one as soon as I can find it again. :)