Insane Anti-Terrorist Idea #32: Kill The Families

[Sofa King]

I need to preface this post with a cautionary statement. I'm not a particularly bloodthirsty guy, and right now I cannot agree with the very suggestion I am about to make. But the idea has occurred to me, and I wonder what many of you think. I'll give the best argument I can give, but my heart really isn't in this.

I'm having a little difficulty offering decent citations, but the news of the past two weeks has named two primary motivations behind suicidal terrorists of the Islamic fundamentalist stripe:

* The Koran promises that "a martyr's privileges are guaranteed by Allah." --cite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59262-2001Sep19.html) In other words, suicidal terrorists are promised an afterlife of luxury and ease.

* The families of suicidal terrorists are well-kept after the incident. --cite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1249000/1249937.stm)

I'm not qualified to speak of the first motivator, so I'll keep reasonably quiet about that.

That second citation is worth quoting more fully: "Recruits are reassured by their organisation that their families will be looked after materially until they die, and there are charitable organisations that exist for this purpose."

So, one answer to the question "who benefits from the actions of suicidal terrorists?" is, the families of the terrorists themselves.

I argue that the families of terrorists are not, therefore, innocent bystanders. Instead, they are benefitting materially from the actions of these suicidal terrorists. I also argue that the impetus to set one's family up financially could be a very, very powerful motivator, particularly among impoverished youths.

So I've got a hammer in my hand, and this problem is starting to look a whole lot like a nail.

Kill them. Kill the families of terrorists.

The families of suicidal terrorists are not innocent. If they accept financial aid, they are in fact participants in terrorism, complicit after the fact. They are part and parcel of the terrorist mechanism, and they are an integral part of that machinery.

There is, of course, an alternative, which would be to simply harass the families of terrorists--knock their houses over and the like, but we've seen the sort of public outcry that results from such actions. Instead, why not go all the way, and identify these people for what they are--guilty participants in a form of warfare that targets innocents.

Why not treat them as such? Kill them, imprison them, or force them into hiding, hunted and living in fear and poverty. It would turn a motivator into a barrier, and I believe it would severely reduce the number of recruits to terrorist organizations.

What do you think? Should I start taking my lithium again, or do I have a point, here?

[Waverly]

Ignoring the immoral nature of this fix it still will not work. A) You will have just created another slew of martyrs for the zealots to get excited over. And B) since the families come from all over the Arab world, including moderate and friendly states, you have now united them against us by attacking their citizens.

Containing the terrorist and buying ourselves time to cope with the larger problem will only come from disrupting their network. Freezing assets and arrests have already begun, and my hope is that a [i]surgical military campaign is imminent. I use the term ‘surgical’ to distinguish it from the more genocidal ideas I have seen bandied about.

But we will always have terrorists to fight in this part of the world until something fundamental changes. The teaching of a corrupt variant of Islam is widespread (http://aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Martyrs_and_Mothers.asp), as is an irrational hatred (http://www.abbc.com/islam/indexar.htm) of outsiders especially jews. Combine this virulent form of fanaticism and hate with a feeling that events are beyond their control (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0995/9509028b.html), and the young and disillusioned will continue to be willing to engage in violence. It’s frightening, but the true eradication of terrorism in the Arab world will be the fruit of seeds of hope sewn from within, if it is to come about at all. There is little we in the west can do but offer support and stamp out terrorism as we see it sprout.

[tracer]

Didn't the KGB do this to when dealing with anti-Soviet terrorists?

[IzzyR]

Previous discussion here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83021).

[Sterra]

Wouldn't it be eaiser to go after those charitable organizations that help the families? Usually you don't kill people for accepting money.

[Guinastasia]

We would become terrorists ourselves if we were to do so.

[atypicalcarl]

The problem with this idea is shown in the following:

Originally posted by Sofa King
Kill them. Kill the families of terrorists.
The families of suicidal terrorists are not innocent.

Read it several times if you need to.

[Duck Duck Goose]

I feel a non sequitur coming on...

Life insurance companies won't pay off for suicide, so you can't go insure yourself for a million bucks and then fly a plane into the World Trade Center, secure in the knowledge that your family will be provided for.

So, what does this tell us about the difference between Radical Islam and the American life insurance industry?

Me, I dunno, other than the fact that the Taliban doesn't send me a birthday card every year with a big "State Farm Insurance" fuzzy sticker in it.

[dunne u. wurrie]

If the families accept money after the fact, then a strong case could be made that they are not innocent. I leave it to others to make this case.

IF these people are not innocent, then imprisoning them is a reasonable solution.

It is also possible that killing them is a reasonable solution in wartime. The rules are different in wartime.

Exhibit A: Hiroshima


"You're dead. You're all dead." - Frank Sinatra

[atypicalcarl]

Let's assume that you are starving, and your children are starving. Your oldest son goes off and joins a cult, kills others and himself, and someone from the cult gives you some bread and milk. Your children eat and drink. Should they be killed or imprisoned? What have they done?

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
We would become terrorists ourselves if we were to do so.


No. We would become baby-killers. Litterally.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

I can't support killing the families. Doing something to them short of killing them...I don't know. Even better would be Sterra's idea:

Originally posted by Sterra
Wouldn't it be eaiser to go after those charitable organizations that help the families? Usually you don't kill people for accepting money.

I would expand on that to say, go after the entire financial infrastructure of these "charities" that support the families of suicide bombers. Do it visibly. If the effort is even halfway effective, it could be a credible deterrent to future suicide bombers, by putting doubt in their minds as to whether or not their families would really be taken care of.

[Badtz Maru]

My idea is better. Torture captured terrorists until they denounce their god, then kill them. Make it public knowledge that we do this. Who is going to aid a suicide bomber when doing so can lead to months of torture in this world and then an infinity in Hell?

[bdgr]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
My idea is better. Torture captured terrorists until they denounce their god, then kill them. Make it public knowledge that we do this. Who is going to aid a suicide bomber when doing so can lead to months of torture in this world and then an infinity in Hell?


Just force-feed them pork

[Spiny Norman]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
My idea is better.

You certainly employ a different definition of "better" than the one I'm used to.

S. Norman

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by bdgr
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
My idea is better. Torture captured terrorists until they denounce their god, then kill them. Make it public knowledge that we do this. Who is going to aid a suicide bomber when doing so can lead to months of torture in this world and then an infinity in Hell?


Just force-feed them pork

I'm sure that Islam has some of the same exceptions that Judaism has for these kinds of situations, probably wouldn't work.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
My idea is better. Torture captured terrorists until they denounce their god, then kill them. Make it public knowledge that we do this. Who is going to aid a suicide bomber when doing so can lead to months of torture in this world and then an infinity in Hell?


There are definitely very very sick people out there. It's somewhat depressing....

[C K Dexter Haven]

Kill? No, but imprison for aiding and abetting, and confiscate their property. Degrade the family, shame the family, publicly humiliate the family.

There's no way to punish a person who is willing to suicide for his cause. What, you're gonna use the comfy chair? Our whole system of law and justice rely on the assumption that people do not want to be punished (killed or imprisoned.) If you're dealing with someone who wants to die, the system does not offer an deterrent.

However, Arabic culture is different from US culture. In US and most western culture, the family is not as important as the individual. Children move away from home when they are old enough. In Middle Eastern (and most Asian) cultures, this is not the case. The family, family honour, the family name, is more important than the individual. Children do NOT tend to move away from their parents' homes.

Thus, one way to stop suicidal terrorists is by letting them know that their families will be disgraced, imprisoned, made to suffer.

The families of these terrorists probably don't get huge amounts of money (it's not like insurance), but they do get some, and they get the honour, the glory, the praise of all their friends. This is what needs to be stopped.

I do not believe these terrorists would thrive if they did not have the encouragement and support of their families. Bush has stated, we will not only go after the terrorists, we will go after those who aid and abet them. That's the families. And I hope Bush has the courage to do that, recognizing that it's inconsistent with the American notion that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions.

[clairobscur]

Punishing someone for the fault of someone else, be it by killing his son of beating his best mate's dog is totally against the most basic principles of western law and human rights. Would you propose to publicly humiliate or imprison the family of the Oklahoma's bomber, or is this idea only good for brown skinned people living in some remote foreign country?



I guess the mere concepts of democracy and human rights would soon be forgotten if people like the supporters of the bright idea proposed in this thread were in charge.

[Wildest Bill]

Well the mob does this to the people that talk or steal from them and you know what not to many talk or steal from them. It is a tragic idea but what they do to us isn't much different other than they started it.

I am not saying I agree with this idea but if they are even considering using bioligical weapons on us we should consider it. It would be a hell of a deterent.

[Sofa King]

Well, clair, what if Timothy McVeigh performed his act partly because he knew his family would be provided for if he pulled it off? Furthermore, what if there were an organization here in the United States which specifically aided the families of those who did such things? Would we tolerate such a thing?

By accepting aid and comfort, these families are supporting the terrorist networks. This is a major problem.

However, I just can't come around to my original idea. Harassment, maybe, but murder? Can't do it.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Thank you, Clair. :)

originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
Thus, one way to stop suicidal terrorists is by letting them know that their families will be disgraced, imprisoned, made to suffer.
"Disgraced" and "made to suffer" by whom? By Uncle Sam, who will go, "Neener neener" at them from the other side of the world? Oh, the humiliation...

"Imprisoned" by whom? By Uncle Sam, who will send in the 82nd Airborne to arrest them all--grandmas, babies, nieces, and nephews--and drag 'em all back to Leavenworth?

Or "disgraced, imprisoned, made to suffer" by the rest of their culture? But then you're proposing nothing less than an entire revamp of their whole culture. The families don't get support just from amongst themselves--it's the entire culture that supports them. How you gonna change that?
originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
The families of these terrorists...get the honour, the glory, the praise of all their friends. This is what needs to be stopped.
Okay, but stop it--how? Should we leaflet them from airplanes, "OSTRACIZE the FAMILY of ABDUL AZIZ ALOMARI!"

You're saying, "If we could only change their minds about their values, we wouldn't have this problem." Well, yeah, and if pigs had wings, they'd be flying pigs. So?

I suppose we could just unleash the entire 82nd Airborne, take over the country, and turn them all on to Women's Lib, Pilates, and crystal power. How long you think it'd take before we had an SUV in every driveway and a ButterBallR Roasting Broiler in every kitchen?
originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
...the American notion that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions.
Um, maybe I'm missing something here. Doesn't this mean that Abdul Aziz Alomari is responsible for the actions of Abdul Aziz Alomari? So why should Mrs. Abdul Aziz Alomari be held responsible for the actions of Mr. Abdul Aziz Alomari?

Since it seems physically impossible for Dubya to arrest families who are in Afghanistan, let us now bring into the discussion the issue of the U.S.-based families.

You evidently do not subscribe to American notion that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions? You evidently hope that Dubya also turns out not to subscribe to this notion, and throws all their Islamic asses in jail? Would this be a good time to quote that thing about, "They came for So-and-so, and I said nothing, because I was such-and-such..." and the lecture on "The Slow Erosion Of Our Civil Rights"?

Or is it that Dubya should only not subscribe to this notion as long as it concerns people in foreign countries?

Or is it that Dubya should only not subscribe to this notion as long as it concerns people of different races and/or religions?

Or is it that Dubya should only not subscribe to this notion as long as it concerns "criminals"? So I guess that means that Mildred Frazer and William McVeigh had better start packing for 7 to 10 in Leavenworth, huh?
originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
Bush has stated, we will not only go after the terrorists, we will go after those who aid and abet them. That's the families.
Um, nope. By this same reasoning, you ought to go after Tim McVeigh's mom and dad, up in New York state. And I can't help noticing that the FBI seems to agree that "aiding and abetting" means "accomplices", not "family members". I haven't seen any news accounts that mention arresting U.S.-based family members for "aiding and abetting", but I have seen lots and lots about looking for "accomplices." If the U.S.-based family members are "accomplices", why hasn't the FBI arrested them and charged them with "aiding and abetting"? Being "detained for possible immigration violations" isn't the same thing.

They've made some "accomplice" arrests already, but AFAIK none of them are "families".

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html
Meanwhile, authorities have charged two men in Virginia with aiding and abetting two of the suspected hijackers in the attacks. The men helped the suspects obtain fraudulent Virginia driver's licenses by signing papers the suspects used to get licenses, according to affidavits filed Monday with the U.S. District Court in northern Virginia.
originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
And I hope Bush has the courage to do that...
My...

God.

You think it takes "courage", to arrest the wives and children, just because they were the wives and children? Well, yeah, I guess it would, come to think of it, 'cause the American electorate would blast his ass right back to Texas.

The day I see that the Feds are arresting the U.S.-based wives and children of those 20-odd guys and charging them with "aiding and abetting" is the day I apply for Canadian citizenship, as America will have suddenly become the barbaric place the rest of the world claims it is.

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by Sofa King
Well, clair, what if Timothy McVeigh performed his act partly because he knew his family would be provided for if he pulled it off? Furthermore, what if there were an organization here in the United States which specifically aided the families of those who did such things? Would we tolerate such a thing?

By accepting aid and comfort, these families are supporting the terrorist networks. This is a major problem.

However, I just can't come around to my original idea. Harassment, maybe, but murder? Can't do it.

Good point. But what if Tim McIdiot knew a head of time that his family would be wacked would he still have done it? I don't think that is a good analogy though Tim McIdiot was a US citizen with rights thereof, we are talking about a foreign country that are terrorizing us.

[Guinastasia]

So, in other words, we stoop to their level.

We become no better than what we speak out against.

We condemn them for attacking our innocents, but then we turn right around and do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Hey Bill-so, if you are arrested for speeding, we should punish your family too?

:rolleyes:

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by Guinastasia

We condemn them for attacking our innocents, but then we turn right around and do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Guin,

The problem is we are dealing with nuts that don't know wrong from right. And if they are nuts, their families are probably nuts to especially their parents. And remember they struck FIRST we didn't.

Hey Bill-so, if you are arrested for speeding, we should punish your family too?

:rolleyes: [/B]

Well if my parents are rewarded for me speeding, then they support my wrong doing so yea probably they should.

[Guinastasia]

Let's also punish your kids while we're at it. After all, nits make lice.

[Wildest Bill]

Listen guin, I am not saying I have a problem with this I am just debating on this side of the coin IF those whaco terrorist use biological or nuclear weapons on the inocent lives of Americans in a terrorist mode(in otherwords cowardly). There is nothing more evil than that.

I always wondered why God wiped out told the Jews to wipe out not only the men but the women and children as well. And with these terrorist it is starting to make sense. It is because their whole way of life is evil and it imbedded even in their children. Which is very sad but also very true.

[Waverly]

The problem is we are dealing with nuts that don't know wrong from right. And if they are nuts, their families are probably nuts to especially their parents. And remember they struck FIRST we didn't. Don’t know right from wrong, eh?:rolleyes: What’s bothering me now, is that in some alternate universe, an extra-dimensional doppelganger Waverly (http://www.discover.com/sept_01/featsecret.html) may be cutting and pasting this quote into his sig.

[Nixon]

IMHO:

If the press accounts are correct, the wives and other adult members of the terrorist families fled the U.S. well in advance of the murders.

Israeli intelligence has noted that the adult relatives of suicide terrorists celebrate their deaths. The families are rewarded by their local communities and are aided by the multinational network of fundamentalists. Although their families often know their relatives are members of a terrorist organization, the families do not know that they are suicide volunteers.

We do not know now whether the adult members of the WTC murderers' families knew that the murderers were in the U.S. to commit crimes. Nor do we know whether these family members knew anything of the planned murders.

If they did know, then they are accomplices to the crimes and should be extradited for trial and punishment - including the death penalty.

If, as is likely, that they did not know, then we should have no interest in them. If, as is also likely, that they like Osama, are celebrating the murders (more poems perhaps)then they are the enemy - and equal to the wartime citizens of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo.

There need be no war at all, of course, if Osama and all his crew present themselves for trial. That, like Hitler calling it quits after Stalingrad and Kursk, is probably unlikely.

The children are of course innocent.

True, like good little fundies, they are being taught daily to consider Jews (and Americans) as vermin. No doubt, we will see 14 and 15 year old terrorists - just as we saw kids in German uniforms in 1945.

But just as we don't fear the children of Dresden or Hiroshima, nor should we fear that our righteous response to those who war on us will make things worse.

It's already as bad as can be imagined. It may even get worse. We are unprepared, with fifth columns scattered here and abroad.

Our enemies seek our and our childrens' deaths. They already have the blood of innocents on their hands. And they will not stop killing until we stop them.

Final victory may take as many decades and deaths as the Cold War. But we have no choice.

Murder and mayhem are the tools the terrorists have chosen to impose their tyranny worldwide. Since they have lit the fire, let them reap the firestorm.

dos centavos

[jmonster]

The morally outraged people seem to be forgetting that the terrorists are dead. There's nothing we can do to the people who actually committed this crime. They were vaporized two weeks ago. As someone else said, the death penalty is not really a big deterrent for these people.

But, if the next wave of terrorists knows that while they're up in heaven with their 72 virgins, we're posting naked pictures of their mothers and sisters on the Internet, they might reconsider the whole cost/benefit analysis.

[atypicalcarl]

Although I can only guess at what goes on in the mind of a terrorist, it seems to me that someone who honestly believes that his death assures everlasting paradise would also believe that the death of his family would hold the same promise. The family's death would therefore have no deterrent value.
Hatred is not justification for murder. That holds true in all circumstances - whether we kill them because they hate us and we consider them too dangerous to live, or because we hate them back.
The only conscionable solution is to bring the known terrorists to justice and work to change the attitudes of the children - remaining ever-vigilant for the resurgence of terrorism.
That's my take, anyway. I want to keep my humanity.

[Sofa King]

And how, exactly, do you change the attitudes of the children when they grow up being taught that the food on their table was brought to them through the godlike actions of their uncle, who gave his life to send six thousand people who were actually innocent to their deaths?

In America, as far as I know, the families of criminals cannot reap profits from the actions of the criminals. This is exactly what is happening with those who receive material and financial aid as a result of suicidal terrorism. Where, I ask, is the humanity in that?

[atypicalcarl]

Originally posted by Sofa King
And how, exactly, do you change the attitudes of the children when they grow up being taught that the food on their table was brought to them through the godlike actions of their uncle, who gave his life to send six thousand people who were actually innocent to their deaths
It's already been stated by others in this forum.

Remove the organizations that sponsor terrorism.
Do not allow a similar organization (or government) to take its place.
Allow the peaceful teachings of Islam to effect change over time.
Remain vigilant for future terrorists and remove them as quickly as quickly as possible.
Get as much of the free world working on this as possible.

It's my belief that this will effect change over time - which is the only real long-term solution to the problem, IMHO.

[Sofa King]

Well, that's a fair enough answer for me. It seems as if there is a pro-active approach and a re-acitve approach, and right now my interest lies primarily with the latter. I hope you're right, atypicalcarl, and I hope I can change my own point of view.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by atypicalcarl
Although I can only guess at what goes on in the mind of a terrorist, it seems to me that someone who honestly believes that his death assures everlasting paradise would also believe that the death of his family would hold the same promise. The family's death would therefore have no deterrent value.
Hatred is not justification for murder. That holds true in all circumstances - whether we kill them because they hate us and we consider them too dangerous to live, or because we hate them back.
The only conscionable solution is to bring the known terrorists to justice and work to change the attitudes of the children - remaining ever-vigilant for the resurgence of terrorism.
That's my take, anyway. I want to keep my humanity.

That's the whole point behind my idea. The suicide bombers don't fear death, obviously. Those that aid them probably do not either, but everyone fears torture and damnation. Yes, it's a big step to take, and morally abhorrent to a lot of people, but I can't think of anything else that would be as effective.

We already condemn people to torture, anyway, by sending them to prison where their being raped and beaten is almost a certainty. If officially torturing them is too much, maybe we could capture those who aid the terrorists or benefit from their evil deeds and put them in our worst prisons, reward the inmates for every day that they are kept alive but turn our heads away from anything else they may choose to do to them.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< You evidently do not subscribe to American notion that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions? >>

That's not the point. The point is that the cultures we are dealing with don't believe that. They believe that the family gains great honour and prestige from having had a son who killed himself and took 6,000 infidels with him. The families are (usually) applauded by their neighbors, and celebrate the son's death day as if it were a religious holiday. They may receive payments (cash or non-cash) from the terrorist organizations, as thanks.

Now, how do we change that? I don't know. A start would be getting the governments to squash the celebrations, to arrest the families and confiscate their property. OK, fine, have a trial if you want to be sure that these families were supportive, and did aid and abet. Although I don't know why these folks should get fair trials when no one else in those countries do. But that's besides the point.

Or, indeed, send in SWAT teams to arrest them and extradite them.

I don't propose the HOW, I'm just trying to argue that the concept is not so dreadful.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think the concept is perfectly dreadful.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
originally posted by C K Dexter Haven:
Bush has stated, we will not only go after the terrorists, we will go after those who aid and abet them. That's the families.
Um, nope. By this same reasoning, you ought to go after Tim McVeigh's mom and dad, up in New York state.

I don't think it's particularly fair or honest to spend half of a thread arguing that we can't get the families' own countries to ostracize or punish them because our cultures are so different, then suddenly switch gears and attempt to analogize from Dex's proposition to McVeigh with the assumption that our cultures our similar.

Not that I necessarily agree with the proposition, but McVeigh did not grow up in a culture where suicide bombers and terrorists are considered heroes and their families are rewarded; the terrorists with whom we are currently concerned did. Any analogy which uses McVeigh and includes that phrase "by this same reasoning" is, it should be obvious, invalid.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
However, I just can't come around to my original idea. Harassment, maybe, but murder? Can't do it. [/B]

Good point. But what if Tim McIdiot knew a head of time that his family would be wacked would he still have done it? I don't think that is a good analogy though Tim McIdiot was a US citizen with rights thereof, we are talking about a foreign country that are terrorizing us. [/B][/QUOTE]


Of course, wild..Why on earth shouldn't an unwashed foreigner be killed? Especially if he's the second cousin of a neighbor of the postman who delivered letters to a terrorist...

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
The problem is we are dealing with nuts that don't know wrong from right. And if they are nuts, their families are probably nuts to especially their parents. And remember they struck FIRST we didn't.

[/B]

Yes, these guys are nuts, their families are nuts, and probably they babies will become nuts in time too. We should slit the throat of some babies in order to avoid the terrorism issue in the future. Besides, they're probably not even good christians....

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
Listen guin, I am not saying I have a problem with this I am just debating on this side of the coin IF those whaco terrorist use biological or nuclear weapons on the inocent lives of Americans in a terrorist mode(in otherwords cowardly). There is nothing more evil than that.

You mean that these people would deliberatly and cowardly kill good americans just because they're americans? You're right the only solution is to kill deliberatly and cowardly kill their wives and childrens

[I always wondered why God wiped out told the Jews to wipe out not only the men but the women and children as well. And with these terrorist it is starting to make sense. It is because their whole way of life is evil and it imbedded even in their children. Which is very sad but also very true. [/B]

I should have guessed it was God's command. I hope we'll be able to add another chapter to it about this slaughter, in order that our heroic massacre of women and children will be remembered forever....

Yes...I always thought these people were born evil. You just have to look at them to know that. They're brown skinned and have funny hats. I'm sure they're even plenty of them who don't want to execute god's will and slaughter the childs of God/America's ennemies as any good christian should.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by jmonster
The morally outraged people seem to be forgetting that the terrorists are dead. There's nothing we can do to the people who actually committed this crime. They were vaporized two weeks ago. As someone else said, the death penalty is not really a big deterrent for these people.

I agree. We can't do anything against these suicide bombers anymore. The morally outraged people obviously don't understand that we must nevetheless take revenge on someone. However, there could be some terrorists who had no close family. I would propose that in this case we execute their former neighbors, instead (at least if they aren't good old americans...in this case, taking some arab-lmooking people at random in the street should be fine)

[But, if the next wave of terrorists knows that while they're up in heaven with their 72 virgins, we're posting naked pictures of their mothers and sisters on the Internet, they might reconsider the whole cost/benefit analysis. [/B]

How could have I not thought myself about this idea! Let's force their screaming wives in playing in an X-movie. I hope they'll have to do very nasty things. And that the movies will be broadcasted on the mainstream TV channels, for the education of all our childrens!!!

Since I believe that if we do something like that, these nasty brown-looking nuts will be outraged for no reason (they're probably not able to understand the obvious rightness of this decision), we should as well do the same thing to all the middle-eastern women, it will be a great fun! And it will deter these nuts from committing any kind of crime against the western nations in the future..

I'm not sure about something, though...Should we take nude pictures of the little girls, too? It should be even more humiliating and hence more efficient, don't you think?

And we couldn't even be acused of a barbarous conduct, since we don't even kill them, could we?

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru

That's the whole point behind my idea. The suicide bombers don't fear death, obviously. Those that aid them probably do not either, but everyone fears torture and damnation. Yes, it's a big step to take, and morally abhorrent to a lot of people, but I can't think of anything else that would be as effective.

We already condemn people to torture, anyway, by sending them to prison where their being raped and beaten is almost a certainty. If officially torturing them is too much, maybe we could capture those who aid the terrorists or benefit from their evil deeds and put them in our worst prisons, reward the inmates for every day that they are kept alive but turn our heads away from anything else they may choose to do to them. [/B]



So, after the humiliating the family, killing the wives, posting nude pictures of the sisters, here's a great bright idea : let's torture them as long as possible!

What a great think tank we have in this thread! Your founding fathers would be proud to know that there are still americans who know what fundamental values like the rule of the law, freedom, etc...means! I must applaud.

Oh! And by the way...I'm atheist hence I'm not affraid of damnation. And you can bet that if all the americans shared your values, I would enlist in Bin Laden's organization ASAP...

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven
Although I don't know why these folks should get fair trials when no one else in those countries do. But that's besides the point.
[/B]


You're certainly right, there are no really serious reason to give a fair trial to these people....Who would think that a fair trial is actually a right? We're not talking about normal people, here. Just about the sub-humans who must be rightly and harshly punished for their father's crime. A trial would mean delays, would cost money, etc...What the point since we already know that their brother, or cousin, or someone from the same specie, anyway is a criminal....

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by pldennison
.

Not that I necessarily agree with the proposition,[/B]

Of course...But nevertheless, punishing the childrens for the father's crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, reinstitute torture and deny fair trial must obviously be seriously considered. If we don't do that, our western values of freedom and human rights would be endangered....




[but McVeigh did not grow up in a culture where suicide bombers and terrorists are considered heroes and their families are rewarded; the terrorists with whom we are currently concerned did. Any analogy which uses McVeigh and includes that phrase "by this same reasoning" is, it should be obvious, invalid. [/B]

The reference to Mc Veigh was irrelevant, anyway...McVeigh was a white american, not an unwashed arab living in some barbarious country where they don't understand our noble values of punishing children for the father's crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, denying fair trial and using torture.....

[pldennison]

clairobscur, c'mere. I wanna whisper something to you, but I want to make sure you hear it as clearly as possible, m'kay?

You can, whenever you want, set up and burn down aaaaaaaaall the straw men you desire. Do it to your heart's content. You will only succeed in making yourself look like an uninformed fool, but that's your cross to bear.

But do not -- ever -- make those straw men speak out of my mouth. I did not say, imply, dance around, pussfoot near, or in any way insinuate the things you so passionately rail against in the paragraphs after my quoted words. If that's they way you want to do things, we will be continuing in another forum.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by pldennison
clairobscur, c'mere. I wanna whisper something to you, but I want to make sure you hear it as clearly as possible, m'kay?

You can, whenever you want, set up and burn down aaaaaaaaall the straw men you desire. Do it to your heart's content. You will only succeed in making yourself look like an uninformed fool, but that's your cross to bear.

But do not -- ever -- make those straw men speak out of my mouth.

Dear Pldnnison,

When I read splendid ideas like those I listed after your quoted words, I expect that any *decent* human will stand against them. And stand extremely firmly. When one of my fellow humans, like you for instance, write "I don't necessarily agree", I find necessary to remind him with what exactly he "doesn't necessarily agree" just in case he wouldn't have understood clearly.


Let's try again : we're talking about punishing children for the father's crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, denying fair trial and using torture. I just want to be sure you "don't necessarily agree" as opposed to "find these ideas utterly barbarous, totally unacceptable and absolutely incompatible with our values", in the hope you could actually be a decent human who was somewhat inattentive at the moment he posted.

[Duck Duck Goose]

The line of reasoning I was following, PL, was "whether it's fair to punish the relatives of psycho bombers for the psycho bombers' crimes".

I don't agree that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter what kind of culture the psycho bombers grew up in, whether it was one that lauded psycho bombers or condemned them. It doesn't matter whether Abdul Aziz's Grandma and Sissy and Uncle Bob think Abdul Aziz is a hero living in paradise because he blew up the World Trade Center. What does matter is that according to our cultural values, cited above (the thingie about every American being responsible for his own actions), it wouldn't be fair for us to punish Grandma and Sissy and Uncle Bob because Abdul Aziz blew up the World Trade Center. In our culture, in our value system, we do not punish Mildred Frazer and William McVeigh for their son's crime, and we shouldn't advocate punishing Grandma Aziz either. That goes contrary to our entire values system, which states that Abdul Aziz is solely responsible for his crime.

It sounds like you're saying that we ought to have one moral rule for Americans and another moral rule for "other cultures". I don't agree.

When we see news items about slavery in Africa, or female genital mutilation, we don't say, "Oh, well, they grew up with that values system, so it's okay for them." No, there are cries of horror, because according to our values system, slavery and female genital mutilation are wrong. We judge other cultures by our culture on other issues, so why should we make an exception for this?

[jmonster]

If Fred Phelps's son suicide bombed a gay nightclub, I would have absolutely no problem turning Fred over to the guy in Sing-Sing with the most cigarettes.

[Menocchio]

Originally posted by jmonster
If Fred Phelps's son suicide bombed a gay nightclub, I would have absolutely no problem turning Fred over to the guy in Sing-Sing with the most cigarettes.

But what if nice old Mrs. Smith's son who had turned to a radical Christian sect, that she's not a part of, and then was killed as shot up a Planned Parenthood?

What then?

I think we should remove the support structure of all terorists, including the pension funds. Make them unstable enough, and they'll no longer be an encouragement. Punising eldery parents and small children won't solve anything.

[Vince the Intangible]

How do you know the family doesn't want to be martyred?

[sailor]

Well, you have it easy. Several binLaden brothers live in the US. One is a student in Harvard, others are businessmen and they are all millionaires.

[dunne u. wurrie]

We all agree that it's ruthless and barbaric, right?

So the question becomes: is it too ruthless and barbaric to ever consider? Under any circumstances? Even if we are faced with extinction (not now, later)?

Because you don't win wars easily, or probably even without becoming morally corrupted. How many innocent people did we kill before WWII came to an end?

The answer is that we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. And this is what war does to people: by the end, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed like a smart move, even a humane way to end the bloodshed!



"You're dead. You're all dead." - Frank Sinatra

[dunne u. wurrie]

Sailor-

where can I take my electrons for recycling?

[pennylane]

First of all, I'd like to say that I think organisations which give money to the families of terrorists should be under attack as part of this whole war against terrorism thing, as they are certainly condoning terrorism. But I believe that the families of terrorists often are not aware of and do not condone the activities of their suicidal, pilot-license-bearing son/father/brother/husband. I don't have any proof of this, obviously, but I watched BBC footage of the parents of a Lebanese boy who is thought to be the terrorist who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania. They seemed extremely upset. They were either very good actors or they really had no idea that their son was a terrorist and still couldn't believe it. They showed a video of their son dancing with girls at a wedding as "proof" that he could not have been an extremist.

It sort of reminds me of a film I watched recently called "My Son the Fanatic", in which a liberal-minded Pakistani taxi-driver in England is shocked to learn that his son has inexplicably turned into a crazed extremist. My own brother went through a similar phase when he was about eighteen, startling his family with his sudden, ridiculous ultra-conservatism. What if instead of growing out of it, he were to have been sucked further in?

Suicidal terrorists are not acting according to their religious or even cultural guidelines. As some of you have already pointed out, Arab culture is different from American culture in that one's family comes before everything. There are no old peoples' homes in this sort of culture, as it is considered shameful not to care for one's parents oneselves. In fact, the Quran specifically includes any kind of religious war as being secondary to the care of aged parents. It seems likely, to me, that suicidal terrorists care only for their own glory and not for those whom they leave behind.

Lastly, I found that long self-righteous tirade on the first page more than slightly annoying. I know it was intended to be "ironic", but more than a dozen references to "unwashed brown-skinned foreigners" offend my sensitivities.

[Badtz Maru]

I agree that sometimes the killing of innocents is justifiable if it prevents a far greater loss of life. I've heard anecdotes about other, less squeamish nations who have used similar tactics to those discussed here - they would kidnap relatives of terrorists and kill them. I recall reading that the old Soviet Union did this a couple of times and incidents of terrorism came to an almost complete stop. If it worked for them, maybe we should consider it now that terrorism is becoming a far bigger problem for the U.S.A. I don't think killing a dozen or so relatives of a terrorist to discourage future attacks is as bad as bombing civilians to bring a costly war to an end.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
It sounds like you're saying that we ought to have one moral rule for Americans and another moral rule for "other cultures". I don't agree.

When we see news items about slavery in Africa, or female genital mutilation, we don't say, "Oh, well, they grew up with that values system, so it's okay for them." No, there are cries of horror, because according to our values system, slavery and female genital mutilation are wrong. We judge other cultures by our culture on other issues, so why should we make an exception for this?

We already do make exceptions. Our troops in Saudi Arabia have to adhere to certain cultural rules, for example.

We judge other cultures by our culture when people are being harmed. And, in case you hadn't noticed, some 6,000-7,000 people were harmed a couple of weeks ago--in part because the men who killed them are products of a culture which encourages them to become suicide bombers, and which provides handsomely for their families when they do.

Remove the incentives for people to become bombers, and you get fewer bombers. Again, I don't say that I advocate this as a method of removing the incentives, but there's no doubt that it is a method.

We have Charles Manson in prison in our own country, despite the fact that he never killed any of the Tate/LaBianca victims, was not even present at the Tate house, and was not present when the LaBianca victims were actually killed. Why? Because he created a situation in which people were amenable to killing others, then told them to do so. He is an accessory to murder, and a co-conspirator.

If the families of Islamic bombers are creating a situation in which these men are encouraged to kill people, and spurring them to do so in order that the bombers might enjoy the fruits of Paradise and the families will be rewarded, how are they not accessories to murder?

[dunne u. wurrie]

the Manson analogy seems to work.

I think I've figured out how these message boards work. You make your points, and if nobody calls you an idiot, then you probably did OK.

If you get silence, you must have made sense.


"You're dead. You're all dead" -- Frank Sinatra

[pennylane]

I just figured out the same thing :)
If anyone quotes you or mentions your name, it means trouble!

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by dunne u. wurrie
If you get silence, you must have made sense.

Er, um, orrrr...because the party of the second part still disagrees but doesn't want to pick a fight and doesn't see a point in continuing. ;)

Orrr...because the party of the second part has a "life" and hasn't gotten around to going back to the thread, or has simply forgotten about it.

Orrr...because nobody who comes into the thread after your post happens to see anything to respond to in it.









And, occasionally, because what you just said was so ignorant, or banal, or just plain stupid that we all simply ignored it... So don't extrapolate what you see here to a general rule. "Silence" does not mean "consent".

[pldennison]

Oh, man, I hope I'm the first one and not the last one.

[Sofa King]

Look, there is some serious faulty logic going on in this thread. I'm going to point one thing out.

There is no analogy to be drawn between Timothy McVeigh and these terrorists. McVeigh was not an Islamic fundamentalist. McVeigh, as far as we know, was not taking orders from anyone else. He was not part of an international terrorist network. He did not have the implicit support of his family, nor does his family have the support of aid organizations. McVeigh's family is not revered in their neighborhood as if they were the parents of an All-American defensive end.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and their families ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

To enumerate, the families of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists enjoy the following:

1) Lifelong financial support after the successful suicide attack of the family member.

2) Opitulation on the part of the local community and even local fame.

3) Acceptance, even encouragement, from some spiritual leaders.

This thread already has links to articles which show all of the above. These families are beneficiaries of heinous criminal acts.

So the next time someone wants to say, "yeah, did we kill Oswald's family?" Why don't you ask yourself, "gee, was Oswald's family complicit in the crime and are they now making money off of his act?" The answer here in the United States, unless you are talking about members of mafia crime families, is NO.

You want to compare these terrorist bastards' families to American families? All right,

here is a list (http://organizedcrime.about.com/cs/crimefamilies1/)

of American families that are logical comparisons. We, the United States, harass these families mercilessly. Watch an episode of the Sopranos, for chrissakes! That's the kind of people you're dealing with, not "innocents."

[Duck Duck Goose]

PL:

[smoooch]

:D