[Chris Taile]

as topic says

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Chris Taile

as topic says

Seeing as it wouldn't be possible to do this after they had detonated any explosive mechanisms they may be carrying as the bodies of the said bombers would be dispersed over an unlocatable area and this fact would render the action superflous, you must by definition be suggesting that they are bombed before they manage to explode any incendiary devices or munitions they may be carrying.

You are therefore wanting the same thing as them - ie to assist in creating a large explosion which will result in their death and they will doubtless approve of your actions wholeheartedly.

You are therefore approving of and assisting terrorist actions and qualify as a pinko-liberal-commie-America-hating- jihadi -supporting-lover-of-the-French.

Why do you hate our freedoms ?

PS can we say IBL here?

[Artful Dodger]

i'm for it!

[analogika]

So are they!

[ghporter]

The primary military defense against an impending suicide bomber attack is to try to destroy the bomber/vehicle before he or she gets within range of his or her target. That may constitute "blowing them up." Whether it does or not, their plans are thwarted if they're the only ones that die, so I'm all for that.

[analogika]

P.S.: Best Dumbest Pol/War Lounge thread EVAR.

[Super Mario]

I have an idea! If suicide bombers think suicide bombing works then let's send suicide bombers to suicide bomb the suicide bombers! Will that work?

Don't think so.

[Pendergast]

I think we should just kill everybody as a preventative measure.

Pre-emptive terrorism I'd call it.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I think we should just kill everybody as a preventative measure.

Pre-emptive terrorism I'd call it.

Of course 'everyone' would include 'us' which is a bit of a flaw but otherwise not bad although not too economical with weaponry resources - besides, one person might survive and they might be a liberal, French or (imagine) a Muslim.

If I might suggest refinement:

We work out the complete stats of who is killed by terrorists, war, suicide bombings etc in every region of the world. Then we take the percentage (say 1% or whatever) and have a lottery of all the citizens of the individual regions (obviously we install directives to administer this and in each place the percentage would be different) - those whose names come up report to a special centre and are put-down humanely.

We could have different categories for Presidents, Generals, Politicians etc so their chances of dying of non-natural causes remain as minimal as they are now and also a voluntary section for would be suicide bombers.

if the US wants to attack Iran or Syria say, then we take an aggregate of historical deaths in wars and campaigns involving similar terrain and the US would have an independent lottery with the increased number of citizens reporting to the euthanasia centre every year for as long as they could stand it.

The attacked country would be informed of the 'attack' and obviously would put in place similar measures - the culling goes on until one side surrenders.

Obviously those opposed to war and lefties etc would be exempt from this as they would also try to avoid a real war but they would still be entered into the 'random terrorist acts lottery'. Any-one who opted out would have to be monitored carefully and if any winger chickenhawks were found impersonating lefties then obviously the penalty would be immediate death and the totals added to the 'acts of God' category at the end of the year.

You could even have quotas or a points system which one would have to not exceed.

It's got to be cheaper than war (and better for the gene pool) and the same numbers get killed so everyone's happy. What do you think?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by segovius

Of course 'everyone' would include 'us' which is a bit of a flaw but otherwise not bad although not too economical with weaponry resources - besides, one person might survive and they might be a liberal, French or (imagine) a Muslim.

If I might suggest refinement:

We work out the complete stats of who is killed by terrorists, war, suicide bombings etc in every region of the world. Then we take the percentage (say 1% or whatever) and have a lottery of all the citizens of the individual regions (obviously we install directives to administer this and in each place the percentage would be different) - those whose names come up report to a special centre and are put-down humanely.

We could have different categories for Presidents, Generals, Politicians etc so their chances of dying of non-natural causes remain as minimal as they are now and also a voluntary section for would be suicide bombers.

if the US wants to attack Iran or Syria say, then we take an aggregate of historical deaths in wars and campaigns involving similar terrain and the US would have an independent lottery with the increased number of citizens reporting to the euthanasia centre every year for as long as they could stand it.

The attacked country would be informed of the 'attack' and obviously would put in place similar measures - the culling goes on until one side surrenders.

Obviously those opposed to war and lefties etc would be exempt from this as they would also try to avoid a real war but they would still be entered into the 'random terrorist acts lottery'. Any-one who opted out would have to be monitored carefully and if any winger chickenhawks were found impersonating lefties then obviously the penalty would be immediate death and the totals added to the 'acts of God' category at the end of the year.

You could even have quotas or a points system which one would have to not exceed.

It's got to be cheaper than war (and better for the gene pool) and the same numbers get killed so everyone's happy. What do you think?

There was a Star Trek (original series) episode on this subject, called "A Taste of Armageddon." Warfare casualties by lottery is just too easy, too "civilized" for it to really work-war, in order to come to any real conclusion, must involve the emotions and barbarity of actual combat, otherwise it's just playing a game.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by segovius

Of course 'everyone' would include 'us' which is a bit of a flaw but otherwise not bad although not too economical with weaponry resources - besides, one person might survive and they might be a liberal, French or (imagine) a Muslim.

If I might suggest refinement:

We work out the complete stats of who is killed by terrorists, war, suicide bombings etc in every region of the world. Then we take the percentage (say 1% or whatever) and have a lottery of all the citizens of the individual regions (obviously we install directives to administer this and in each place the percentage would be different) - those whose names come up report to a special centre and are put-down humanely.

We could have different categories for Presidents, Generals, Politicians etc so their chances of dying of non-natural causes remain as minimal as they are now and also a voluntary section for would be suicide bombers.

if the US wants to attack Iran or Syria say, then we take an aggregate of historical deaths in wars and campaigns involving similar terrain and the US would have an independent lottery with the increased number of citizens reporting to the euthanasia centre every year for as long as they could stand it.

The attacked country would be informed of the 'attack' and obviously would put in place similar measures - the culling goes on until one side surrenders.

Obviously those opposed to war and lefties etc would be exempt from this as they would also try to avoid a real war but they would still be entered into the 'random terrorist acts lottery'. Any-one who opted out would have to be monitored carefully and if any winger chickenhawks were found impersonating lefties then obviously the penalty would be immediate death and the totals added to the 'acts of God' category at the end of the year.

You could even have quotas or a points system which one would have to not exceed.

It's got to be cheaper than war (and better for the gene pool) and the same numbers get killed so everyone's happy. What do you think?

Interesting, yet far too complex.

I rather suggest the following.

Pick one individual, a very rich one. Educate him to become Master of the World, with a True Evil Mind (TEM).

His evilness would be such, that all life on Earth would be destroyed, except his.

Since everything destroyed is innocent, all the victims go to Christian Paradise, and the guy with TEM goes to Hell.

How about that?

Please note that no nationality or religion is involved except Christianity and "that's a good thang".

I'd call that "pop biblical cycle".

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There was a Star Trek (original series) episode on this subject, called "A Taste of Armageddon." Warfare casualties by lottery is just too easy, too "civilized" for it to really work-war, in order to come to any real conclusion, must involve the emotions and barbarity of actual combat, otherwise it's just playing a game.

Yeah, right.

And I never win at lottery on top of that.