If we know whom the leaders are in the “War on Terror” why not offer peace talks?
If they’re interested or at minimum we could track their communications easily track and kill them, problem solved? Everything’s Black and White in the world isn’t it; we’re right and they’re wrong. All’s fair in love and war don’t those Islamic fighters deserve the death we‘re handing out for attempting to rid the USA’s influence from their Holy Land?
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
The people that are fighting Israel and the US are not reasonable. They want Israel's destruction. That's all that matters. They've been given land for "peace" before....and they're not satisfied. They want it all. They can not be reasoned with.
Why don't we fight these wars to win? Why don't we use as much force as we can? Well...we're just too nice. We no longer have the will to win at all costs, like our enemies do.
Offer peace then kill them when they show up? Sounds good but is a very dangerous course of action to take and we need not do it. If we ever get a reputation of using deceit, it will harm us in the future. It is kind of like using a white flag to get your enemy to drop his guard before attacking, once that happens there will be no surrender after because as soon as a white flag is shown, you will be shot.
Our enemies have shown time and time again that they have no intention of stopping attacking us so their total destruction is the only answer we can give them.
It's a very noble thing to try to offer peace, but that unfortunately has been forced out of the question by Mr. Bush. For the other part of your question, no one really deserves to be killed. How can you be mad at someone for wanting someone else out of their land. If someone tried to do the same thing to the USA; the USA would fight back just as much as they are if not more.
Terrorists resort to terrorism because they are unable to peacefully talk or because they don't get "their" way. A person who resorts to committing terrorist acts, has forfeited their chance to talk peace, because they are still accountable for the terrorist acts committed. Besides, any agreement made with a terrorist couldn't be trusted.
If a person in the US robs a bank and kills the manager, they don't get peace talks, they get the full extent of the law and a foot in the azz. Why do we hold ourselves to this standard and feel bad/wrong holding others to it?
Terrorists do not want peace, they do not want land, they do not want freedom...
They want the world rule by a militant Islamic law.. nothing else.. so if you want peace with terrorists then you have to be dead, or Islam.. I want neither, so I will never surrender to them...
But if you want to, then by all means go for it... remember to face mecca 5 times a day...
Yea, if your going to try to get all posh and use the accusative case, use it correctly. In that instance it should be who, not whom.
Bush doesn't negotiate with terrorists, largely because if Bush did he might not be able to go to war as often.
Because neither side wants to talk yet. Who do you talk to if they are not willing? When enough blood is spilled minds begin to open to negotiation. It's been that way from the beginning of time.
Offer peace talks with Osama Bin Laden?
You must be joking.
This animal does not want peace. None of them do.
They dont want peace we have tried that. They take advantage of it. Now it is time to just wipe them out so that we wont have to worry about them anymore.
We'd have to kill ourselves to to meet thier terms for peace. You first.