An idea that is picking up momentum behind closed doors on terrorism.

Great Debates
141

I agre with the first part of your statement here but not the last. These people already have all the rationalization they need, enough to blow up innocent muslim children and to hack off the heads of “the infidels”. Their actions can’t be ratcheted up any more.

As far as the idea presented by the Pershing legend, if, as I think clairobscur mentioned, it won’t work, if the pigs blood and the like is not really a deterrent, then it wold make absolutely no swnsw to do it. The larger point is: does there exist ANYTHING that they value more then we value our lives and the lives of innocent children?

IF there is, whatever it might be, we should use that as leverage. Doesn’t that make perfect sense? Hopefully, that might get us to a point where the proposition is: "Okay, you don’t want us to do X, fine, we don’t want you to chop off people’s heads and kill and maim innocent children. What do you say we both stop?

I am behind the ideas in the first paragraph above 100%. But I am also willing to see if there are other things we can do. And the idea I suggested, as flawed as it might be, doesn’t fall into the category of BIG, DRAMATIC, and RIGHT NOW. If someone is guilty of terrorism, meaning there’s been a trial, you sentence him to death usiing those methods. But as I already said, it seem that the idea is not practical because the swine aspect is not as strong as I thought, so I’d take it off the table.

This is first rate nonsense. No one wants to win the MORE than those in the Republican party. And it’s that they care more about symbolism, it’s that they realize that symbolism matters, and can help you win wars. They can also help you lose wars. Symbols like the idiot Sen Durbin standing up in the senate equating the few infractions at Gitmo to the attrociies committed by the Nazis in their concentration camps, the Russians in their gulags and Pol Pot.

Symbols of protest against not only the war, but against the President and the troops themselves. For instance, the protest in Oakland that tried to stop a ship with supplies for the troops (on the field of battle) from leaving. Or the sign protestors held in Washington (or was it SF) professing: “We support our troops. When they kill their officers.” Or how about the symbolism of that great unwashed mass called Michael Moore sitting with a former president at the Dem. Convention. Or the rantings of a Columbia U. professor hoping for a million Mogadishus, Or those of perhaps that fake Indian and genuine asshole Ward Churchill equating the victims of 911 to little Eichmans and saying that killing one’s officers may be a better course of action than applying for Conscientious Objector status.

Or how about the symbolism of the leadiing national paper putting stories of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on the front page fifty something times? Over fifty times! And then tryiing to equate those abuses (which would barely qualify as such in the world of the terrorists) with Hitler’s concentration camps. Hell, I’ve been to frat parties where the “abuse” was almost as bad. And the difference is that the abuses were not tolerated by our governement. Investigation started, people were arrested, tried, and sentenced. What, pray tell, is beiing done to the guys who chopped off the heads of Nicholas Berg and others.

We’re going to lose the war because of people like ME? Your ignorance may only be exceed by willingness to spew forth whatever nonsense is conjured up in the diseased grey matter north of your neck. First of all, what do you know of my stance and actions during the war. Nothing. (And by the way I’m not a Republican, nor did I vote for Bush, either time.) If we lose this war it’s goint to be becasue of attitudes of people like YOU.

Thank God that we’re not having to fight WWII with ideas like yours front and center. Or with a press that is more interested in making the President look bad than they are in us winning the war. Thank God.

142

[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]

[li]Spanish Prime Minister lies his ass off to place the blame for the bombs on Basque separatists.[/li][/QUOTE]

The way I rememeber it is that he said they didn’t know if it was the work of Muslim fundamentalists or Basque Separatists. Wold you have preferred that he, before he had any evidence, stated flat out that Muslim Fundamentalists were the ones responsible?

143

Here is how it was reported at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm

The Spanish government seemed very keen to blame ETA.

144

From here:

From here:

145

I don’t think the idea would work very well.

Put how about charging people around the terrorist as co-conspirators. For instance Palestinian children get examples in math class like: If Ahmad kills three Jews and Hussein kills six Jews, how many Jews did they kill altogether?

If one of the students goes on kill Israeli civilians, I’m all for dragging the math teacher, the principal of the school, the writer of the math book, etc., in and charging them with murder.

146
      • Here’s a fun side-question: there are those here who have said things to the effect that “with better intelligence, these terrorist acts could be prevented”. Answer this: if you thought that a radical Moslem group wanted to assasinate you, would you always be willing to trust that the police could always infiltrate every plan before it succeeded, and prevent your injury?.. (or is that different? <;) )
        ~
147

:rolleyes:

Bush opened his mouth and called TWAT a Crusade early on, then he said “mission accomplished”, then “bring them on” then just before Abu Graib said “the Rape rooms of Saddam don’t exist anymore”

All those symbols stupidly given by Bush were indeed used and helped the enemy, as it was invading Iraq, but only a dumb metaphor used to criticize something that remains an evil got a democrat to apologize for it. Indeed he apologized for it and you bringing that up without mentioning his apology is actually a good argument that he should not have apologized.

Even I don’t think that is appropriate, even Democrats are on record repudiating actions like that, so for the subject at hand it is irrelevant. What did you say about playing childish games or sticking to the actual debate?

Leadership or taking responsibility is not for republicans then.

Cite were the paper did so.

Rape is condoned at frat parties? That is not the point, at the beginning even Europe supported the peculiar jails and peculiar status of the capture enemy, but then Bush administration decided to change the interrogation procedures, then even Europe found out that interrogations that amounted to torture were tolerated and said so.

If one can find those thugs, blowing them to smithereens is a good idea if they resist capture, and looking at Falluha that that was attempted then, the fact that more attackers are appearing should be ignored, just like the French did in Algeria. Incidentally, the violence in Iraq shows to me a gross lack of control, Iraqis on the fences are losing patience with liberators that do not protect or keep their industry for themselves.

No, we are losing it for having a dumb president that decided to equivocate the needed action in Afghanistan to the unnecessary one in Iraq, that equivocation has only meant that many have in their ignorant minds that failure in Iraq will mean failure against TWAT, news for you: looking at the evidence Fox news or Rush will never tell to you, is that our so called “victory” was the result of criminal elements like Chalabi with connections to Iran, Osama was happy to see the US take out an enemy of him and we had a president that cherry picked the information. Check the documentary “the fog of war” to see how ignorant is your position that someone else is responsible for the failures.

Monumental ignorance spill in isle 141!

Just to show how silly was that: officially it is indeed the policy of the USA to respect the human rights of all captured enemy combatants, after the abuses were found, punishment and even jail for the abusers would have been impossible if there was no official position that the abuse was not tolerated, in other words, were prison is concerned, the administration is officially indeed fighting this war with the “rotten ideas” of the left, the fact remains that this administration is finally doing the right thing only because A) they subjected to it and B) the media, reasonable folks and the rest of the world complained about the abuses.

148

Are you implying that Bush is lying on how prepared we are? IOW: that homeland security is a waste of money? Incidentally, part of succeeding in places like Iraq is to give back ASAP control of their industry to Iraqis, otherwise there is very little incentive to rat on the insurgents or to die for Halliburton.

149

Well, on purely logical grounds: you know your kidding has been hanging out with political extremists and spending a lot of time away from the house doing Allah knows what. You talk to him and he either clams up or calls you an Uncle Mohammed, etc. So you know something’s up. Then you hear that some trains got blowed up good, and some cops come and haul you downtown and start asking you questions about your son. Like where is he and who does he hang out with and were they radical Muslims.

Do you say, “Yeah, I knew something was up, but I didn’t think he would ever do anything bad?” Or do you say, “I had no idea he was up to stuff like that. I thought he was hanging out in the library, studying for finals.”

In short, the picture we get of nobody knowing nothing bout what was up might just be a tad inaccurate, purely due to the rest of the family’s not wanting to be tagged as co-conspirators and such. Especially if you come from a country where the government routinely makes families pay for the transgressions of family members.

150

I’m pretty sure that most of “them” value their lives just as highly as any of us. That they are willing to lay them down for the sake of their cause is what should worry us, and to get behind the reasons for their cause and to reduce the likelihood of their cause creating more terrorists our goal. Oh, and it must be OUR innocent children whose lives we so value. It can hardly have been the Iraqi children.

Well, yesterday a gentleman on the bus complained that I was standing on his foot. I started hitting him. Then he complained about me hitting him. I said sure, if you stop complaining about me standing on your foot I’ll stop hitting you alright.

The only problem with the Republicans wanting to him the “war” more than anybody else is that they aren’t doing a very good job of it. Neither, as far as I can see from here, would the Democrats, for that matter. The problem is very obviously in the minds of those who write sentences like “a few infractions at Gitmo” – people who don’t appreciate the value of the freedom they have enough to be willing to defend it, and instead prefer to abandon it for those who are so obviously not like them. If it weren’t such a standard by now I’d truck out old Ben Franklin again, and his sacrificing a little essential liberty.

Where will I put MY strawman now? Seems you took up all the space…

Good lord, the press. Think they can print anything, don’t they? Think that the rights of some inmates in some obscure Iraqi prison where they sure got it better now than back in old Saddam’s time warrant mention! The nerve of them! The symbolism of it, too! Instead of painting a picture of a nation united in abrogating the rights of prisoners and the determination to let no human rights stop the righteous crusade against terror, it paints a picture of a nation concerned enough with fundamental human rights to actually care about punishing the perpetrators of those crimes. The nerve, as I’m saying. (Though I’m rather sure that without those fifty headlines, the U.S. government would have been far less interested in a trial and sentence…)

No, it’s YOU. points finger.

There, feeling better now. Feel free to reciprocate, I’ve always felt that finger pointing will be helpful. Jesting aside, however, one of the problems is certainly the abysmal tendency to call this a war. It’s not. Never was, never will be. It’s international crime, no doubt, and on a vast scale. But like crime, it will be solved (if it will be solved) by removing the causes for crime, punishing the perpetrators of the crimes, and first and foremost, by identifying, tracking and destroying the organizations of that crime. Unlike war, it will not be solved by occupations, mass destruction, or bloated military budgets. It’s a hard concept to wrap your mind around, I don’t doubt, when you’re being fed the “war on terror” line day in and out, but it’s a necessary prerequisite. Ask Europe (ask, for once, please!): neither the IRA, nor the RAF, nor the various other terrorist organizations subdued by the Western Europeans were taken down by a war, but by slow, methodical policework.

Your President, interestingly enough, does not require a lot to look bad.

151

From what I’ve read, “accidentally” isn’t quite the word here. “Uncaringly” might be better. Rove decided that getting some distraction from the Dem Convention was more important than keeping the info secrect. See Valerie Plame.
[/QUOTE]

152

For the record I think the OP’s idea doesn’t fly on its own terms: it assumes that suicide bombers care about their families.

Do they? I agree with Marley, the suicide bombers must be aware that their actions will cause huge pain to their families. I suspect that most of them are too immature (the very young ones) or too disturbed to care about their families. In fact, one of the commonplaces of psychology is that suicides at some level mean to hurt their families. I remember one formerly suicidal person recounting a meeting with his/her counselor. He/she asked the counselor what he should have said to his family on a suicide note. The counselor wrote a brief note on a piece of paper and handed it to the suicide attemptee. The note said ‘Fuck you.’

I would have to see some very hard evidence that terrorists care more about their families than their ideology or their own lives before I’d accept the notion that punishing the family might have some effect on them. The idea just doesn’t make sense on its own terms.

153

Actually, there are plenty of us who are generally supportive of the US’ proactive approach to Muslim fundamentalism. If few of us have appeared in this thread to support the approach advocated in your OP, and stand alongside you and stephe96, perhaps that ought to tell you something. One does not have to be “on the con side” to think your approach is foolish.

154

Y’know I don’t think that’s at all what they’ve said.

From ObL himself:

This is all horrific payback for the decades of killing we’ve bankrolled and encouraged in the Middle East. And we’re sitting here discussing doing more of the same?

By the by, I’ve lived in the Middle East myself and many, many Muslims have been friends of mine, here and there. Anyone who wants to denegrate them as a group can fuck right off; you and I aren’t from the same civilization.

155

I think anybody would have to admit that Bin Laden speaks to his audience. He says different things at different times to different audiences, and changes his presentation depending on what he wants and from whom. These days, one of his immediate goals is to splinter the ‘coalition,’ weakening the War on Terror and the effort in Iraq. So he responds with his semi-reasonable “any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked” line. Other times, he sings a different tune.

That sounds more like a war between civilizations to me.

156

I seem to remember someone around here proposing actually killing terrorist’s relatives. Of course I don’t subscribe to that (aside from Atta’s dad), but doing something ala Israel razing the family’s house might work.

These animals value innocents’ lives or any life, even their own, as expendable… so you do indeed have to go after what they do value. Do they have a sense of love for their family? Dunno.

You’d have to be careful about which members you go after. Of course the parents would be an obvious first choice, as they would be the ones who have taken it upon themselves to raise a human being with a sense of moral…

It’s a tough call… I’m unsure how I’d respond.

157

Doesn’t sound like it to me; he’s talking about ‘allies’ of the US, which has a large military presence in the Middle East. This is actually very consistant with the quote I posted. That’s a different statement than “we must wipe out the West” or “we must attack Europe in general,” which would be a ‘war of civilizations.’ The concept that this is really some sort of culture war plays into the hands of the warmongers here and in the Middle East. I should think that if it were then Sweden might be near the top of the attack list.

A lot of this is about the material control of the energy wealth of the region. If the oil weren’t there we wouldn’t be either. Defending the home turf has taken on a religious connotation for some people there, but this is hardly surprising, especially when our own president uses the word “crusade” describing what we’re doing over there.

If you sent an army largely consisting of Muslims to invade Texas in order to obtain control of the oil supply I imagine there’d be some very Christian rhetoric coming out of a lot of the resistance, but that wouldn’t mean that the reason for the fighting was a clash of cultures.

158

Zuma, you seem to have missed the arguments already made in this thread, including those that (I believe correctly) state that what you are proposing is to punish innocents for crimes thye had nothing to do with. If you actually believe that punishing innocents is in fact moral behavior, or that the parents of suicide bombers are in fact guilty of some sort of crime, or even if you can simply show that the Iraeli policy of demolishing the homes of the relatives of suicide bombers has some factual deterent effect, please state your arguments clearly, and I am sure the posters here will examine them in detail.

Re: the OP, who, by the way, has really failed to pose any kind of coherent argument, it appears that the thrust of this thread is the bizarre claim that the United States should take some sort of military revenge action, up to possibly unleashing a nuclear attack on Mecca, as a response to terrorist attacks that were not in fact made against the US, or (it’s not really clear) as belated revenge for previous attacks that have all happened many years ago.

Has anyone at all noticed that the not one of the governments (to my knowledge) of the countries that have suffered recent terror attacks, including Egypt, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Indonesia, have actually asked the USA to take any military action on their behalf? Given this case, what is your justification for taking the absurdly brutal and ham-fisted steps being proposed here?

159

There you have it; that wasn’t what I meant he was saying. :wink: I said a war between the civilizations not meaning that “we have to wipe them out,” but rather “it’s one civilization against the other until we get what we want.” I mean, World War II was fought between the Axis and Allied powers, but the goal wasn’t to wipe out the other side.

They’d hit Sweden if it had any strategic value to them. It doesn’t, and it might not be the easiest country for them to get into.

‘Allies of the U.S.’ seems to have a very broad meaning to Bin Laden. Anybody who’s getting money, anybody who’s given any military aid, and so on. Egypt was not part of the Iraq coalition. They’re a target because the government has made peace with Israel, and is not Muslim enough. Any government that is not Islamic enough by fanatical standards appears to also be on the shit list. What makes a government not Islamic enough? Secularization and Western influence.

I’m not attempting to oversimplify what’s going on here, I just think that when Bin Laden and co. say that it’s the duty of every Muslim to kill Americans and their allies, they’re painting things in the grandest (and most scriptural) terms they can. How many Western nations do you think they would say are not ‘Allies of the U.S.?’

160

Actually, the fatwa is perfectly consistent with the first message. The first messag said : we’ll attack countries (civilian included, since he’s refering to the towers) that attack us (us presumably being muslim countries), and the fatwa is the call to kill american and their allies (civilians included) as an effort to get them out of a muslim country.

So, I don’t see the contradiction.