I was watching Swordfish with J. Travolta and he said this and I thought it was a good idea. Is it 2 extreme?

Question

(In this movie Travolta works for the government deep undercover)

Jackman: War? Who are we at war with?
Travolta: 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 it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

(*I wouldn't say nuke a city, but maybe do some damage.)

Answer 1

Works for me.

Answer 2

I think as if I were the US president I would give all these countries that are fighting and killing eachother, and us, an ultimatum. "Either stop all of this BS within a week or I will turn your entire country into a glass factory". Just make sure that you are able to do it should you be tested. It is the only way to stop the insanity that is going on in the world today. Sure, violence is not the way to go, for most civilized nations, but, we are in a fight for our lives here, and as one member said, we are fighting a guerilla war, the nastiest, dirtiest type of war there is. If we want to win, we must be willing to do WHATEVER it takes to win. It is easy to sit back here and listen to the liberals talk about war attrocities, and war crimes, they are not the ones on the front lines. In a war you do whatever you have to do to win. And as people more wiser then me have said, to win "you must make sure the enemies body count is higher then yours". That is what takes out their will to fight. But you must do it desicively, no screwing around. Of course that will never happen here because we are too politally correct for that sort of action. And that is why our soldiers are getting killed over there by the thousands. Amen

Answer 3

the most tragic thing is that the powerful American corporate and millitary establishment have performed fake terrorist operations to make it look like it was done by foreign terrorists.

It's like a a hand-pump. You have to put a cup of your own water in to get the water flowing from the well. The CIA kills a few hundred Americans in Twin Towers with the help of CIA opps (Binn-Ladden). The CIA makes the American people very angry and they give carte-blanche to their Fascist President to make war where ever he pleases. I didn't believe it at first until I read about Building #7 in 9/11. The explosives that brought the building down was already in the building before the first plane hit one of the Twin Towers. Silverstein said they pulled the building down.

Answer 4

Then what would be the difference between the terrorists acts and our acts. Would we not be doing the same thing the terrorists are doing only on a bigger scale? Not to mention escalation, we bomb an airport the terrorists in turn bomb 2 or 3 of ours and this keeps on escalating.

Answer 5

It's a good point, and expresses the sentiment of many Americans, but isn't very practical in the age of the Internet and the cell phone.
We are used to the idea of nation-states waging war on each other. We still have potential enemies of this sort, so we buy F-35's and M1A2's. But most of our enemies, especially those against whom we're active now, aren't like that. The wars against the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan are long over.
We now fight against groups tied not by nationality but by ideology. How does one bomb a group of twenty when one is in New York, another is in London, another in Karachi, etc.? This kind of war is in this regard much more difficult. It's long, tedious, and personal. U.S. history shows we've done similar things in the past with results ranging from mixed success to utter failure, but it is possible to succeed. One must simply realize what kind of war he's fighting and then do it well. Most Americans have simply not yet realized what kind of war we're in.

Answer 6

It's how we used to operate. Reciprocal action is for twits - in order to prevent recurrence, one must massively retaliate, showing that attacking the US is a losing proposition.

Jihadists understand this more than the appeasement talk of the cowards.

Answer 7

yea it's extreme, you're approving the escalated use of terror. even though it's what we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's still morally wrong. violence only begets more violence. if we continue on Travolta's route, the world's major players would be nuked by next week. i don't like nor condone living within a system of fear.

Answer 8

doesnt work look back when the gautlen gun was created. The man who created that was hopeing that it would make war so horrific becuase it could cause a massive amout of loss of life. That people would be less likely to start a war.

Answer 9

Good idea in theory. Who will make the decision as to the response? The president? If it is not strong enough he is called weak... Clinton, if considered too aggressive he is called a warmonger... Bush.

Besides if it is a group, like say, the Taliban or Ha-mas not a govt., who do you bomb, the govt. that supports them... oh yeah, we did that, Iraq and see what happened.

All in all, great idea in theory.

Answer 10

I see nothing wrong with this approach. In all fighting you hurt the other guy worse than he's hurting you. Just common sense.

Answer 11

I don't think that we want the US to be feared by everyone. We should have some semblance of diplomacy. But I agree, that if someone attacks, we should bring them to justice. that is why I am so angry that OBL is still not caught!