You mean that these people would deliberatly and cowardly kill good americans just because they’re americans? You’re right the only solution is to kill deliberatly and cowardly kill their wives and childrens
I should have guessed it was God’s command. I hope we’ll be able to add another chapter to it about this slaughter, in order that our heroic massacre of women and children will be remembered forever…
Yes…I always thought these people were born evil. You just have to look at them to know that. They’re brown skinned and have funny hats. I’m sure they’re even plenty of them who don’t want to execute god’s will and slaughter the childs of God/America’s ennemies as any good christian should.
I agree. We can’t do anything against these suicide bombers anymore. The morally outraged people obviously don’t understand that we must nevetheless take revenge on someone. However, there could be some terrorists who had no close family. I would propose that in this case we execute their former neighbors, instead (at least if they aren’t good old americans…in this case, taking some arab-lmooking people at random in the street should be fine)
How could have I not thought myself about this idea! Let’s force their screaming wives in playing in an X-movie. I hope they’ll have to do very nasty things. And that the movies will be broadcasted on the mainstream TV channels, for the education of all our childrens!!!
Since I believe that if we do something like that, these nasty brown-looking nuts will be outraged for no reason (they’re probably not able to understand the obvious rightness of this decision), we should as well do the same thing to all the middle-eastern women, it will be a great fun! And it will deter these nuts from committing any kind of crime against the western nations in the future…
I’m not sure about something, though…Should we take nude pictures of the little girls, too? It should be even more humiliating and hence more efficient, don’t you think?
And we couldn’t even be acused of a barbarous conduct, since we don’t even kill them, could we?
So, after the humiliating the family, killing the wives, posting nude pictures of the sisters, here’s a great bright idea : let’s torture them as long as possible!
What a great think tank we have in this thread! Your founding fathers would be proud to know that there are still americans who know what fundamental values like the rule of the law, freedom, etc…means! I must applaud.
Oh! And by the way…I’m atheist hence I’m not affraid of damnation. And you can bet that if all the americans shared your values, I would enlist in Bin Laden’s organization ASAP…
You’re certainly right, there are no really serious reason to give a fair trial to these people…Who would think that a fair trial is actually a right? We’re not talking about normal people, here. Just about the sub-humans who must be rightly and harshly punished for their father’s crime. A trial would mean delays, would cost money, etc…What the point since we already know that their brother, or cousin, or someone from the same specie, anyway is a criminal…
Of course…But nevertheless, punishing the childrens for the father’s crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, reinstitute torture and deny fair trial must obviously be seriously considered. If we don’t do that, our western values of freedom and human rights would be endangered…
The reference to Mc Veigh was irrelevant, anyway…McVeigh was a white american, not an unwashed arab living in some barbarious country where they don’t understand our noble values of punishing children for the father’s crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, denying fair trial and using torture…
clairobscur, c’mere. I wanna whisper something to you, but I want to make sure you hear it as clearly as possible, m’kay?
You can, whenever you want, set up and burn down aaaaaaaaall the straw men you desire. Do it to your heart’s content. You will only succeed in making yourself look like an uninformed fool, but that’s your cross to bear.
But do not – ever – make those straw men speak out of my mouth. I did not say, imply, dance around, pussfoot near, or in any way insinuate the things you so passionately rail against in the paragraphs after my quoted words. If that’s they way you want to do things, we will be continuing in another forum.
When I read splendid ideas like those I listed after your quoted words, I expect that any decent human will stand against them. And stand extremely firmly. When one of my fellow humans, like you for instance, write “I don’t necessarily agree”, I find necessary to remind him with what exactly he “doesn’t necessarily agree” just in case he wouldn’t have understood clearly.
Let’s try again : we’re talking about punishing children for the father’s crime, posting nude pictures of the sisters, denying fair trial and using torture. I just want to be sure you “don’t necessarily agree” as opposed to “find these ideas utterly barbarous, totally unacceptable and absolutely incompatible with our values”, in the hope you could actually be a decent human who was somewhat inattentive at the moment he posted.
The line of reasoning I was following, PL, was “whether it’s fair to punish the relatives of psycho bombers for the psycho bombers’ crimes”.
I don’t agree that it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
It doesn’t matter what kind of culture the psycho bombers grew up in, whether it was one that lauded psycho bombers or condemned them. It doesn’t matter whether Abdul Aziz’s Grandma and Sissy and Uncle Bob think Abdul Aziz is a hero living in paradise because he blew up the World Trade Center. What does matter is that according to our cultural values, cited above (the thingie about every American being responsible for his own actions), it wouldn’t be fair for us to punish Grandma and Sissy and Uncle Bob because Abdul Aziz blew up the World Trade Center. In our culture, in our value system, we do not punish Mildred Frazer and William McVeigh for their son’s crime, and we shouldn’t advocate punishing Grandma Aziz either. That goes contrary to our entire values system, which states that Abdul Aziz is solely responsible for his crime.
It sounds like you’re saying that we ought to have one moral rule for Americans and another moral rule for “other cultures”. I don’t agree.
When we see news items about slavery in Africa, or female genital mutilation, we don’t say, “Oh, well, they grew up with that values system, so it’s okay for them.” No, there are cries of horror, because according to our values system, slavery and female genital mutilation are wrong. We judge other cultures by our culture on other issues, so why should we make an exception for this?
If Fred Phelps’s son suicide bombed a gay nightclub, I would have absolutely no problem turning Fred over to the guy in Sing-Sing with the most cigarettes.
But what if nice old Mrs. Smith’s son who had turned to a radical Christian sect, that she’s not a part of, and then was killed as shot up a Planned Parenthood?
What then?
I think we should remove the support structure of all terorists, including the pension funds. Make them unstable enough, and they’ll no longer be an encouragement. Punising eldery parents and small children won’t solve anything.
We all agree that it’s ruthless and barbaric, right?
So the question becomes: is it too ruthless and barbaric to ever consider? Under any circumstances? Even if we are faced with extinction (not now, later)?
Because you don’t win wars easily, or probably even without becoming morally corrupted. How many innocent people did we kill before WWII came to an end?
The answer is that we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. And this is what war does to people: by the end, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed like a smart move, even a humane way to end the bloodshed!
First of all, I’d like to say that I think organisations which give money to the families of terrorists should be under attack as part of this whole war against terrorism thing, as they are certainly condoning terrorism. But I believe that the families of terrorists often are not aware of and do not condone the activities of their suicidal, pilot-license-bearing son/father/brother/husband. I don’t have any proof of this, obviously, but I watched BBC footage of the parents of a Lebanese boy who is thought to be the terrorist who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania. They seemed extremely upset. They were either very good actors or they really had no idea that their son was a terrorist and still couldn’t believe it. They showed a video of their son dancing with girls at a wedding as “proof” that he could not have been an extremist.
It sort of reminds me of a film I watched recently called “My Son the Fanatic”, in which a liberal-minded Pakistani taxi-driver in England is shocked to learn that his son has inexplicably turned into a crazed extremist. My own brother went through a similar phase when he was about eighteen, startling his family with his sudden, ridiculous ultra-conservatism. What if instead of growing out of it, he were to have been sucked further in?
Suicidal terrorists are not acting according to their religious or even cultural guidelines. As some of you have already pointed out, Arab culture is different from American culture in that one’s family comes before everything. There are no old peoples’ homes in this sort of culture, as it is considered shameful not to care for one’s parents oneselves. In fact, the Quran specifically includes any kind of religious war as being secondary to the care of aged parents. It seems likely, to me, that suicidal terrorists care only for their own glory and not for those whom they leave behind.
Lastly, I found that long self-righteous tirade on the first page more than slightly annoying. I know it was intended to be “ironic”, but more than a dozen references to “unwashed brown-skinned foreigners” offend my sensitivities.
I agree that sometimes the killing of innocents is justifiable if it prevents a far greater loss of life. I’ve heard anecdotes about other, less squeamish nations who have used similar tactics to those discussed here - they would kidnap relatives of terrorists and kill them. I recall reading that the old Soviet Union did this a couple of times and incidents of terrorism came to an almost complete stop. If it worked for them, maybe we should consider it now that terrorism is becoming a far bigger problem for the U.S.A. I don’t think killing a dozen or so relatives of a terrorist to discourage future attacks is as bad as bombing civilians to bring a costly war to an end.
We already do make exceptions. Our troops in Saudi Arabia have to adhere to certain cultural rules, for example.
We judge other cultures by our culture when people are being harmed. And, in case you hadn’t noticed, some 6,000-7,000 people were harmed a couple of weeks ago–in part because the men who killed them are products of a culture which encourages them to become suicide bombers, and which provides handsomely for their families when they do.
Remove the incentives for people to become bombers, and you get fewer bombers. Again, I don’t say that I advocate this as a method of removing the incentives, but there’s no doubt that it is a method.
We have Charles Manson in prison in our own country, despite the fact that he never killed any of the Tate/LaBianca victims, was not even present at the Tate house, and was not present when the LaBianca victims were actually killed. Why? Because he created a situation in which people were amenable to killing others, then told them to do so. He is an accessory to murder, and a co-conspirator.
If the families of Islamic bombers are creating a situation in which these men are encouraged to kill people, and spurring them to do so in order that the bombers might enjoy the fruits of Paradise and the families will be rewarded, how are they not accessories to murder?
Er, um, orrrr…because the party of the second part still disagrees but doesn’t want to pick a fight and doesn’t see a point in continuing.
Orrr…because the party of the second part has a “life” and hasn’t gotten around to going back to the thread, or has simply forgotten about it.
Orrr…because nobody who comes into the thread after your post happens to see anything to respond to in it.
And, occasionally, because what you just said was so ignorant, or banal, or just plain stupid that we all simply ignored it… So don’t extrapolate what you see here to a general rule. “Silence” does not mean “consent”.
