The potential scope of this is just unfathomable to me. I am sitting here realizing on a very very low level what it must be like to live in a place where this sort of thing is not all that unusual. Ireland? The Mid East? My gawd, there are people in this world who live with the threat of immediate and very personal violence DAILY.
I sit here thinking about the INDIVIDUALS who committed these terrorist acts, whether or not they were “ordered” to by whatever organization. And I am thinking about the people who didn’t know this morning that they were going to be dead before lunch.
In all fairness, Arafat condemned the attack and had the celebrants dispersed.
What is really spooky is I went to a lecture by David Gergen this summer, a former Presidential advisor who said everyone he knew in the Clinton adminsitration said they had at least one sleepless night because they were 100% convinced there would be a major terrorist attack on the US in the next ten years.
Manservant, so your position is that it’s not wrong to kill innocent people, it’s just wrong to kill our innocent people? Fuck you. You can throw cliches at me all day long, but the fact remains: if we become innocent-killing assholes to get back at them, the world will have more innocent-killing assholes and fewer good people in it. I don’t see how that is productive in any way.
What the hell is the point of having ethics if you throw them away the first time someone really pisses you off?
We will kill their innocents, so then they will kill our innocents. Then, in retaliation and with just cause, we will kill their innocents. A madate from God for a holy war will inspire them to kill our innocents. How long will this go on? Bring those responsible to justice (if that ever can be achieved), but leave the innocent people out of it for a change.
Touche, PunditLisa, but you must also bear in mind that the Republicans’ precious Missle Defense Shield has just been proven 100% USELESS. Looks like it’s time for us all to regroup and refocus.
And how was it proven “100% Useless”? Because it didn’t stop hijacked airplanes?
I invite you to defend your “logic” here. You seem to be alleging that because a defense system not even in place yet, and not designed for a particular threat, hasn’t stopped that threat that it is therefore “100% Useless”? It also won’t stop tanks rolling in from Canada - does that make it “100% useless” as well?
Please, use all the space you need, and make sure you actually answer my question, and not dodge it.
No. I prided myself in my “moderate”, “middle-of-the-road” beliefs and outlook on life. Even a full career in the military and duty as a police officer I have prided myself in tolerant, moderate views.
It’s amazing the difference one day in your life makes. I’m not speaking out of emotion anymore. That could’ve been my family in the WTC taking a tour or seeing the sights.
The America we knew before today will no longer exist, for better or for worse, we will deal with it in our own way, according to your own individual conscience. There is no more concern for justice, just revenge. I care not for value judgements-- “right” or “wrong”, “just” or “unjust”. Let their innocents die, let their homes burn, destroy their dreams, grind their hopes and future into dust. Make them cry out for mercy as they stand in their own blood and ruin.
It was my calling for 20 years. This is what total war is all about.
Michael - I too, deplore using this event as a means of advancing a poltical agenda. Any of them. All of them. and frankly I see both sides doing just that.
I didn’t hear about it until 2 fucking pm, believe it or not. I went to the library after my morning class, and when I called home to ask about what time my dad could pick me up, my mother told me. I hurried to get to the computers, but my ACCOUNT WAS LOCKED (even though I didn’t do anything…)
Good god, I am so fucking scared. I mean I am scared shitless, I’m crying. Goddammit, I don’t want this…I don’t want war! I DON’T want to start a war…are you fucking insane? More killing? More destruction? My god…
Completely sincere question: Let’s assume we’ve spent 50 TRILLION more dollars on defense, and spent it exactly in the ways we have always spent it, only more so.
How in the world would it have made the tiniest bit of difference in what happened today? And why would people who are willing to * commit suicide * to make their point care in the slightest how “powerful” we are?
I think most people are lumping in “foreign intelligence” with “defense”. And spending 50 trillion dollars on that would definitely have made a difference.
Also, there is the notion that if the US was a much more militarily powerful country, then we might be a little more in control of a psychological edge. A 600-ship navy would do wonders for that, as would having 50 carrier battle groups.
Michael Ellis: A double-secret fuck me for using this issue for a partisan driveby? Did you read the OP?
Anthracite: The logic is this: the missle defense system is allegedly necessary in order to protect against “rogue states” and terrorists. So it has been said by the Bushies a number of times. So, if we had a working missle defense system in place right now, would anything be different? Would we have been protected against rogue states and/or terrorists or whoever we assume did this? No.
I’ll admit to using “Pit math” in my 100% figure. But the point is that, clearly, these unsavory elements don’t need nuclear warheads to fuck us up. I believe that a bit more money spent on, oh, say, airport security would do more to foil terrorist plans than even a working missle defense system (which, as you rightly point out, does not exist).
True, there is a possibility that the terrorist groups in question could gain nuclear armaments and attack us with them. But it has by no means been proven that a missle defense shield would even protect against that threat. So when I hear someone railing against liberals for our unwillingness to sink money into defense, I can’t help but lash out (particularly in this forum, particularly in light of today’s events) at the impractical assumptions implicit in their arguments. In other words, here’s a liberal who would more than gladly spend more on anti-terrorist defense, just as long as it isn’t on, yes, useless space toys.
I’ll ignore the partisan shot of “Bushies” while I wait for fairness-minded liberals to chastise you with the exact same equal intensity that they did conservatives that used the words “Clintonites” or “Clintonistas”. And I’m sure they will do that, if they don’t want to prove themselves worthless hypocrites.
The exact, same intensity.
Anyhow - it is to protect against nuclear attack from rogue states, not to provide blanket protection from all actions of those rogue states.
This is not logically valid. You may as well say “What good is our Navy? They didn’t stop this, thus they cannot protect us.” Does anyone else see why this logic is not valid?
OK. How will increased airport security protect against nuclear attack from a rogue state? Wait - that’s what a missle defense system might help to achieve…
I see your point overall, but you are not making it very well. Your logic has weakness.
The course of action I advocate is not war. War will accomplish nothing, due to the way the group responsible for this attack likely operates.
We must find the leaders, everyone involved in planning and executing this attack. We must then try them, in an international court, for crimes against humanity.
The trial must be a fair one, or the whole thing will be meaningless. Those that are found guilty should be placed in solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives.
Killing these men will make them martyrs. Locking them up will serve to show that we are serious. I also firmly believe that if we choose to lay waste to the nation harboring this group, or the nation responsible if indeed it was the act of a state, we become no better than these nefarious, dishonorable men.
We claim that war is an evil, that the world must find better ways to solve it’s problems. Let us show the world we mean it.
