Apparently, it’s directed at getting everyone to accept that terrorists, like hurricanes and earthquakes, are among the inscrutable forces in our world that surpass the understanding of man. Of course in the case of hurricanes and earthquakes, that attitude has turned out to be bullshit. Increased understanding of these phenomena has lessened their human toll. Is there a logical reason that not coming to know the minds and motivations of terrorists will be more effective in reducing their impact than trying to understand what makes them tick?
Nope. Its directed at gettign everyone to accept that terrorists, like RAPISTS AND MURDERS, are irrational and insane and thus surpass the understanding of those that are sane and rational.
To say that a terrorist kills because it disagrees with US foreign policy, is like saying hurricanes happen because God is angry. We’re deluding ourselves away from the truth and trying to make ourselves feel better.
Um. Actually I was addressing the question asked in the OP. “Do we need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism?”
Depends exactly what “zero tolerance” means, and what it leads to.
If it leads to this, then my answer to the OP must be “no.”
From your link:
“Plainclothes police chased the man onto an underground train on Friday after he ignored warnings to stop, shooting him five times in the head because they feared he was carrying a bomb and was going to detonate it.”
I don’t think this is such a bad thing. The guy emerges from a house already under surveillance after the bombings, he’s wearing a bulky jacket on a hot summer day and he refuses to stop after several warnings. This idiot, though not carrying a bomb, had to be aware of the heightened nerves and tense atmosphere when it comes to London’s tube. This incident, tragic though it might be, sends a message: we are not kidding around. I don’t blame the police one bit on this one. Imagine the alternative: a bomb goes off on a subway train, 50 people are killed and it turns out the police had followed the guy into the tube and yelled at him to stop…but he didn’t want to so they let him on board. Not a chance that’s gonna happen. Not now.
By the way, police in London are famously unarmed, right? Do a lot of people simply run away from the Bobbies? All I can think of is Robin Williams’ famous line-“Stop! Or I’ll say ‘stop’ again!”
Yet despite their “irrationality” and “insanity”, terrorists plan and plot, and know quite well how to fuck with us poor rational slobs. Do you believe reason to be so inferior to insanity that it will not work as means to discovering how to mitigate the actions of the insane?
If the guy’s so potentially dangerous, why let him get anywhere near a tube station before telling him to stop? They had him under surveillance from the moment he left his house but, as far as i can tell from the various stories i’ve read on the subject, they didn’t confront him until he was actually entering the station.
From the Guardian:
According the NY Times the guy was from Brazil…
I mention that he’s from Brazil only because your article had him as Asian.
Who knows why they let him so close? They might have figured he might lead him to other bombers. Why tip your hand and leave three or more bad guys out there?
Sorry. My mistake. Your article has his as Brazilian. I was just reading another article that had him as Asian. Oops. Carry on…
It’s entirely possible for him to be both.
When British media outlets refer to someone as Asian, it often means someone from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka). The person could have been of Asian background and also been a Brazilian. The Guardian article also refers to him as Brazilian.
Rapists and murderers aren’t irrational and insane. They are just bad people. They usually have a reason for what they do, just not a good reason.
You know, re-reading the article I notice it does has him as both! Huh.
But the more important point is whether we want to give police license to shoot to kill on the merest suspicion that the person they’re followng may be connected to terrorism. This is what worries about a “zero tolerance” policy.
All this time I thought Brazil was in South America! :smack:
When did all terrorists become Moslem? Would a Bobby shoot a red-headed guy that was suspicious looking and carrying a backpack, he might be connected to the IRA? And if memory serves, wasn’t Tim McVeighy a White Supremacist? If we aren’t careful watching out for them, what’s to stop one of us from sneaking in and doing harm. I recently heard someone say, “Nero burned Rome and blamed Christian radicals.”
WE are rapidly becoming our own worst enemies. If we aren’t careful, we will make our own Totalitarian world.
Would you please stop justifying terrorism as simply being an act of insane people? If you keep doing this, then it will be okay for all insane people to commit acts of terrorism simply because the rest of us sane people can’t understand them.
Not sure if you’re being ironic, or simply thick.
It is entirely possible that the man is of Asian descent, but is a Brazilian (i.e., a citizen of Brazil).
Here’s another example, in case you’re having trouble keeping up.
A third-generation American of Japanese descent living in San Francisco. The person could quite reasonably be described as Japanese or Asian in appearance, and yet be described, equally accurately, as an American.
I just watched the interview.
I don’t know if there is an actual debate here. I wish there wasn’t. But in the interview, FZ was calling for a no-tolerance stance against terrorism in that it should all be condemned-unequivocally. There was no intimation of killing anyone in retribution.
He was trying to point out that those who attempt to explain it away, do not help the cause. Thanks to emacknight for the link.
What exactly is the OP suggesting? “Zero tolerance for terrorism” is a slogan not a policy. What are the policies that the slogan is supposed to create?
Possibilities:
We’ll use our resources to capture and kill terrorists - well duh, find me somebody suggesting otherwise.
We’ll refuse to deal with any former terrorists that gain political power - this is going to derail peace plans in Israel. The Palestinians certainly have some former terrorists still around and it’s not like the Israelis are 100% pure either.
We’ll fight countries that support terrorists - this isn’t going to be too popular with our Saudi allies when we attack them.
We’ll punish anyone who kills an innocent civilian under any circumstance - so if an American bomber accidentally hits the wrong target you’d execute the pilot?
We’ll kill anyone who might become a terrorist - it’s a long list, you might want to bring some extra bullets.
We’ll give the government whatever power it says it needs as long as it says it’s for fighting terrorism - a really bad idea
So which 0T4T policy are you talking about?