And how would you feel like if one of your friend or family had been killed by a random american bomb dropped on a marriage party as it happened several times?
Given your overal stance, the obvious answer is that you would feel that something must be done to deter the crusaders, and that harming their innocent fellow countrymen by planting bombs in the subway would be a perfectly sensible response.
The “what if you were” arguments rarely makes any sense. Like in “What if your daughter was raped and murdered” versus “what if your son was accused of having raped and murdered a girl and was claiming his innocence” in death penalty debates. Justice ought not be administered by the victims but by disinterested parties.
No offense, but I’d just as soon not take ‘advice’ from someone who seriously worries about making terrorists ‘mad’ at us. What is this? *Mr. Rogers? *
I applaud your appeal to fairness and balance in our response to terrorism. Who, then, should we attack when US citizens are harmed by American right wing Christians? What punishment should be meted out to the families of fanatics who kill abortion clinic doctors? Maybe Jesus is powerful enough to stop missiles from raining down on the towns where Christian terrorists live?
This idea doesn’t seem to be very well thought out.
The Tamil Tigers are credited with pioneering suicide bombing, and they’re not Islamic terrorists.
Can you even read? I feel like I’m talking to a spambot. I have said repeatedly that I’m not worried about making terrorists mad. I think radicalizing other parts of the population is something to worry about any that we should try to avoid.
Watch me say it: in my last post, I said very specifically “I’m not worried about [making terrorists mad]. 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 I need to repeat it every other sentence for you to notice? I don’t care if terrorists get mad. I said that not every action that makes people mad is worthwhile, and that if it is worthwhile, it does not matter if it makes people mad." Have you got this yet? Will you ever get it?
Oh FCOL. He never said that or anything remotely like that. He said that he is worried about making currently non-terrorist, potential recruits mad.
He is worried about that because he is worried that if they get mad they will begin reacting exactly the same way you did when you got mad: by suggesting that it is now justifiable to kill civilians and blow up major landmarks.
If you think that this is an acceptable policy, then you must also admit that killing 40 londoners each time a muslim is killed by some christian, for instance, is equally acceptable. Actually way, way more reasonnable since you’re killing much much less people this way than by launching a missile on Mecca.
IOW, you’re a worst human being than people who support the terrorist attacks.
But I’m quite convinced you’re unable to realize it, and are going to believe that it’s some sort of ludicrous comparison instead of noticing that’s it’s ust a plain blatant, obvious truth : you’re advocating crimes way worse than those committed by terrorists. You don’t mind killing innocent people in droves to fight your war.
Well, to be honest, I’ve never said a word about doing anything to the families of terrorists. But you are mistaking criminal justice for a war on terror. You let me know when a whackjob Christian takes out 3000 people in a single morning. Then we’ll talk. But a single shooting? The religious nut should be arrested, tried and tossed into prison. Believe me, I think these right-wing Christian fruitcakes are stupid…but they aren’t even close to being anywhere near as dangerous as Islamic fanatics.
But you think we’re making the terrorists ‘mad.’ OK. What did we do to make them so upset that they:
Set off a bomb at the WTC in '93.
Murder 18 US servicemen in Somalia
Kill 19 more US servicemen in the Saudi military base bombing
Caused bin Laden to issue a fatwa to kill US citizens on 2/22/98
Blow up the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Kill 17 US sailors on the USS Cole
7 Murder 3000 innocent US citizens on 9/11
The first 6 under Bill Clinton’s watch with no retaliation of any kind. One would imagine that leaving them alone and not bothering them would cause them to “go away,” huh? Why do you think they increased their attacks when nobody was doing anything to them?
I don’t know…Maybe using intelligence to gather informations about actual terrorist networks or people who fund them. Arresting the actually guilty people. Engaging in a construtive dialog with moderate muslims so that they will side with you rather than with the terrorists, things like that.
More or less, my general idea would be to go after the actual criminals rather than killing or deporting bunches of innocent random people. What do you think of my novel concept?
I think your ‘novel concept’ is nuts. How do you go after the ‘actual criminal’ when he’s a heretofore law abiding citizen who just happened to blow himself up during this morning’s commute and kill fifty-something people? You get back to me on that one.
By the way, what laws do you believe Mohammed Atta broke before he slashed the first flight attendant’s throat? (Remember: box-cutters were not banned items that morning).
That is a lie. And the worse thing is that it is proven a lie by the information provided on your link, particularly on the 1993 WTC attack.
Funny that the media and republicans can shame some senator into apologizing for giving a talking point to the enemy (for criticizing Guantanamo and using a Nazi reference) but when a Republican or conservative like **Stephe96 ** does it, no shame comes their way, even though threatening Mecca with destruction is 100 times worse as a way to give a propaganda tool to the extremists in the Muslim world.
But a whole arab city population murdered for no reason, you don’t seem to have a problem with this, apprently.
Your idea is absurd, counter-productive, and worse than that : just plain criminal. It’s from the ranks of people thinking like you that terrorists get support.
Primarily? Having military bases in Saudi Arabia and supporting Israel. Among other things.
…other than the arrest, conviction and jailing of the key plotters in the 1993 WTC attacks, and a few ineffective missile strikes…
Nobody suggested that, and if they did, it would be stupid. Terrorists have goals they want to see achieved. The reversal of the two policies I mentioned are certainly among the things on Al Qaeda’s list. As the things they deemed “evil” continued to happen, they continued and increased their attacks, since the smaller ones didn’t get the job done.
You seem to suggest they were just “venting,” which makes no sense.
What exactly was the “lie?” You don’t think those six attacks occured under Clinton’s watch? Or you think that by rounding up the bombers and throwing them in jail the US had ‘retaliated’ in some way? Lot of good it did, huh?
A dead bin Laden is a hero who fell on his post, fighting the hated invaders. A locked-up bin Laden doesn’t really carry the same symbolic value, does he ? 3 squares a day, doing dishes in the kitchen. (Incidentally, I think most of “the Muslim world” considers Osama bin Laden an insane fucking nutjob who’s caused them all sort of grief.)
Hitting back “with as much force as possible” is simply counterproductive. It’s knowing just what force is necessary and then applying it that constitutes statesmanship. Terrorism is not fought in set-piece battles and a lot of the conventional military thinking, tactics and hardware just doesn’t apply.
Just as catholicism wouldn’t disappear if the Vatican was razed, Islam - much less militant Islam - wouldn’t disappear with Mecca. The inhabitants of Mecca would, of course. You want that on your conscience ? Speaking of disappearing, so would any muslim support for the US on anything for the next few generations. It’s not a smart plan. If you lock up bin Laden, the terrorists get mad. If you bomb Mecca, every single muslim will have a score to settle. It’s an idiotic concept.
It is not legal to plot terrorist attacks and murder, or to associate with terrorists. (I’m not sure if he was in the US legally; I think some hijackers were and some weren’t. If he broke those laws, add it to the list.) Associating with Osama bin Laden, as he personally did, along with other known terrorists, is not legal. Those things should have got him nailed years ago, as he was under surveillance.
Saying “it’s a fair fight” doesn’t make it one, and mass murder by one side doesn’t justifying mass murder by the other. Yawn. I’ve heard this before, please try to keep it interesting.
[QUOTE=DougC 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.
~[/QUOTE]
In the same way that you can’t defeat the US army but you can send a clear message to “like-minded people” by blowing up a skycrapper or two they hold dear.
