Tell that to the people who just died in Egypt. If you do think it’s working, that’s a ridiculous way to measure it. The hijackers who attacked America on September 11th were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Three of the men who blew themselves up in Britain this month were from Britain. I don’t find that very encouraging.
The problem you have… I’ll start again. One of the problems you have is that you think “they” are a set group of people. If you made MORE people made by threatening them and their religion, you’d have more of “them” detonating themselves.
Do you come up with this on your own, or do you copy and paste from Tom DeLay’s Web site? There’s no shame in admitting it.
Killing everybody who looks at me funny might deter people from looking at me funny, but it wouldn’t be even close to just.
Anyway, most of the September 11th hijackers severed ties with their families years before the attacks, so I wonder if punishing the families wouldn’t also be a total waste of time.
The problem you have… I’ll start again. One of the problems you have is that you think “they” are a set group of people. If you made MORE people made by threatening them and their religion, you’d have more of “them” detonating themselves.
QUOTE]
If by “they,” you mean people who will happily kill as many ‘infidels’ as possible in the name of Allah then, yes…you are correct. “They” ARE a set group of people. “They” are a group beyond reason, beyond normal human thinking…“they” will not be bargained with or appeased. They would gladly kill you or me and everyone we know and not even blink. You have a September 10th mentality that is extremely dangerous in this day and age.
You libs think religious fanatics are the most dangerous thing on the planet when they are American, right-wing Christians…but somehow, somehow, when they are simply whackjob Islamic terrorists you believe they shouldn’t be “made mad” or “upset” because their religion is *so * important to them. Let me guess…a crucifix in urine? That’s artistic expression. Burning the US flag? That’s free speech. But desecrating a Koran? My God! That’s an unforgivable blasphemy that simply will not stand.
Hell, let’s give 'em an ultimatum. Next US citizen that is even harmed by a terrorist attack from an Islamic nutjob? We’re launching on Mecca. Maybe Allah is all-powerful and can stop the missiles. Who knows? If not, these whackjobs can find something else to worship.
Wrong. Behind any suicide attack, and particularly behind the London attacks, is a support networks. The guys who build the bombs, the guys who arrange for travel to the madrassas, etc. None are killing themselves, but all are in some way involved with murderous acts. And without these people, the four lads with the rucksacks wouldnt’ have done what they did.
Except for the last statement there, I don’t agree. I’m not talking about appeasing anyone. I was responding to your absurdity, so let’s talk about what YOU said instead of this ridiculous “you have a 9/10 mentality” “liberal psychologist” bullshit.
So: yes, you cannot deter committed terrorists with talk. That does not mean your “let’s get revenge by defiling mosques and nuking innocent people in Mecca” will deter terrorists. But, and I hope this doesn’t blow your mind, not everybody over there is a terrorist. If you attack and enrage more of them, you’ll probably end up with more terrorists, which is opposite to the goal of deterring terrorism. Dig?
Blah blah blah blah blah. But you think murdering innocent people, and antagonizing dangerous people, isn’t dangerous. Somehow I’m less afraid of me.
Skip the talking points and try to stick to the topic, will you? We’re not talking about flag burning, liberals, or art. You and I were talking about the idea in the OP, and about your suggestion vis a vis Mecca.
Fine. You don’t want to “antagonize” them, you don’t want to “attack” them, you don’t want to “enrage” them. What, exactly, do you propose doing? Nothing? Go about our lives and simply chalk up the children they blow up as, oops, collateral damage? Give me something !
I propose not using your fucking idea, that’s what I’m proposing! And that’s ALL I proposed, not “sitting them down and playing psychologist” or “not hurting their feelings.” Get it yet? Good god! Are you saying are options are “do something outrageously stupid, or do nothing?” I propose we find good ideas and use them. Keep doing the good parts of what we’re doing: follow suspected terrorists closely, arrest and break up cells, use coordinated strikes and force when it’s needed, and so on.
Actually, if you’d followed anything that’s happened in the past fortnight, yes this is how London has behaved. Of course it is terrible for the families & friends of those killed. But other than that, it’s business as normal. Have you a problem with that?
Extremely few lives are lost due to terrorism in western countries. If the benefit is only to save some lives, I’m sure you could easily come up with dozens of laws related to healthcare, driving regulations, etc… that would save way more lives.
If you ban tobacco and institute severe jail sentences for all people caught smoking, you’re going to save dozens of thousands lives each year in any country. So, by your reasonning, it would be immensely more jusified to embark on an anti-tobacco crusade than to pass the kind of law you’re proposing.
Also, following closely your reasonning, punishing the family of ordinary murderers or of drunk drivers would also act as a deterent and save lives. Do you support this too?
What makes you think that the minimal number of lives you could possibly save by implementing such measures are worth abandonning our principles, while you aren’t advocating the same thing to protect us from the much more deadly drunk drivers or lung cancer?
You don’t think “arresting them” and “breaking up cells” will make them mad? You don’t think “coordinated strikes” will antagonize them? You don’t think “force” will create more terrorists? I’m sorry, but you’re just gonna have to try harder.
Me? I say if frickin’ Allah and that stupid Mecca stone are the most important things in their lives, it’s all fair game. How else do you fight an enemy that doesn’t consider remaining alive the critical goal? You find where they live and you hit them there.
And maybe you haven’t thought this through all the way. That’s OK, it’s my fault. But think about it this way, and we’ll probably find some agreement: not all Muslims are terrorists by a long shot. Nobody thinks that. But imagine, just imagine, the president going on TV and explaining to the Muslim world that we “simply will not tolerate any more terrorist attacks. Ever. At all. Zero tolerance. Therefore, if you peaceful Muslims would like to keep your most sacred icons intact you will turn on your fanatical brothers. You will turn them in. You will take them out. Whatever it takes. We simply want a ‘good faith’ effort to show that the world is against these dangerous few. The choice is yours. You know who and where they are. Tell us. Now.”
You seem to forget: there is no other major problem with any group of people running suicide bombing missions. Yes there are other people who have been violent all over the world, but not nearly in the first-world on the scale that Moslem extremists have. With the first round of London bombings it was noted by a local Londoner online that the IRA usually phones in warnings so that people do have the chance to evacuate. The London bombs were intended only to produce body counts, and the targets were locals, not specifically US nationals or expats. This is NOT just an “American” problem, and you cannot make mean people be nice by being nice to them. Of course with a suicide bombing by nature you cannot punish the person responsible, but you can send the clear message to like-minded people afterwards that if they do this act, the things they hold most dear are going to pay the price.
~
You’re missing the point. What Marley is saying is that there’s not a finite number of terrorists in the world - they recruit. Perceived or real injustice and persecution is a great - possily the greatest - recruiting tool. There will always be those who rally around the banner of “Your life sucks and it’s their fault”.
If in killing one terrorist you cause more than one to join their ranks, you’ve added to the problem. Actions taken against terrorism should ultimately reduce their effectiveness, wouldn’t you agree ?
Anyway, there actually is one thing that terrorists do fear, and that’s failure. Raid the safe houses, empty the bank accounts, listen in on the communications, infiltrate the organizations. Make arrests - then have a real trial with real defense lawyers and all that. Then lock the bastards up if they’re guilty. No blaze of glory - just the dreariness of a life sentence.
By the way and for what it’s worth: despite the OP I don’t really believe that this idea is “picking up momentum behind closed doors.” At least, I don’t think it is!
I think it will make the terrorists mad and generally not bother other people too much. I’m not worried about that. What I want is that, if our actions are going to make people mad, which they might, that they accomplish something worthwhile in the process. Do you get this yet? Arresting terrorists, busting terrorist cells and plots, and killing terrorists is productive. Defacing shrines is not productive, it’s juvenile vandalism. Nuking Mecca would be mass murder.
As a friendly word of advice, I suggest you never say this to anyone else on this board again. People will laugh and get hurt.
You’d have just proved to every Muslim that this IS a war between the Western and Islamic worlds, exactly as the terrorists have said, and that it’s going to be them or us. I think this would radicalize enormous segments of the population, which doesn’t like us but doesn’t like their governments or the terrorists either. Congratulations! It’s Armageddon, Charlie Brown!
If I ignore what you actually said and look at the thought that might be at the root - the idea that we need to erode the terrorists’ support (which I think is happening more and more as they kill other Muslims and bring scorn on Islam from the rest of the world) and need to get help from non-fanatical Muslims - I would agree.
I understand this…I just don’t quite get how raiding them and locking them up would fail to create more terrorists. You don’t think Osama could recruit from his prison cell? You don’t think the Muslim world would consider a locked-up Osama something to rally around? I think we’re gonna make these insects mad no matter what we do…so I say we hit back with as much force as possible.