Yes!
Gary Zukav has had some wonderful things to say… I quote about 15 %
And Polycarp, you probably didn’t see my thread of last night, which sank like a stone, predictably:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=86862
What effect would striking back have? Sure, it makes our collective ids feel good; it satisfies our sense of justice and gives us something to focus our rage on, but what good will slapping back do to the slap itself? Ten thousand people have died. Let’s do our darndest to keep the number around there.
I support the OP’s opinion; I think we should really step up our security, and whip our intelligence departments into shape. Would that make America look like a race of cowards? Probably. But what does that matter? Would you care what others call you if you had the biggest guns on the block?
I find the talk of war rather sickening. Sure, they killed thousands of innocents. Sure, they destroyed the two largest landmarks in our nation. Sure, they are evil fiends. But shouldn’t we exercise some consistency in our moral code? They killed, but an eye for an eye only leads to two blind people.
My opinion here may be ignorant and naive, but it’s my opinion. I apologise if I offend anyone with my extreme interpretation of ‘thou shalt not kill’.
Not really. My point remains the same: it didn’t take much to pull this off. 18 suicidal guys, four of them pilots, and some knives. War isn’t necessary or useful to prevent it from happening in the future.
The things that I believe really would prevent it cannot even be discussed here. Not today, maybe not ever.
stoid
Repeating assertions doesn’t necessarily make them so. The people examining the evidence are telling us that this took quite a lot to pull off. You have conveniently ignored arguments to that effect. If you can refute the claim that it was not simple, please do so.
Also, I mentioned a few things which going to war against rogue nations which harbor terrorists would change. To wit,[ul][] you can deprive them of funding[]you can remove the governments which are hiding themyou can utterly destroy any training camps/organizations which are training them[/ul] You apparantly disagree, and I think it’s not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you disagree.
Just when I thought she couldn’t amaze me any further, after last November …
emarkp,
Why bother debating anything with Stoid? I have never seen her change her mind on an issue and it seems fairly obvious that there is a mind numbingly small percentage of the population who has as extreme liberal views as she does. Save your well thought out posts for those who deserve a response.
Grim
I don’t think forgiveness is an option, because of one simple thing: they’re not asking for forgiveness. They’re proud of what they’ve done. My parents don’t usually forgive me unless I apologize…and my children will be raised the same way.
Now, if they do apologize (not bloody likely), then it becomes an option…though still not a very attractive one, IMO.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by emarkp *
**
Also, I mentioned a few things which going to war against rogue nations which harbor terrorists would change. To wit,[ul][li] you can deprive them of funding[]you can remove the governments which are hiding themyou can utterly destroy any training camps/organizations which are training them[/ul] You apparantly disagree, and I think it’s not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you disagree. **[/li][/QUOTE]
Of the above list, only 1 and 2 can conceivably be accomplished (and my original point was that #3 is beside the point in this instance…they were trained right here). And if they are, others will spring up to replace them. Whatever you “accomplish” may be psychologically satisfying, but you havent’ had any permanent, real impact on anything.
No one has answered my question: how well has a get-tough position worked in keeping Israel terrorism-free?
Another question: are you willing to have innocent civilians die in these operations? And if so, how do you justify that?
Finally, and I mean this as no slam at all, I think most people want military operations and aggressive violent retaliation because it gives the illusion of control. Well, when you are dealing with people who are happy to die because it martyrs them to the cause, you have no control. There is nothing that includes violence that will stop anything. But to acknowledge that feels too much like surrendering to powerlessness, so we don’t.
The only “transformation” that would take place were the perpetrators of these acts permitted to walk away forgiven and unpunished is the transformation of more Americans (as well as citizens of other nations) into dead bodies. These people are not practitioners of your religion. They don’t care about your religion, nor its emphasis on forgiveness. They don’t want to be forgiven; they want you to die.
Avenging the deaths of loved ones, and attacks on one’s property and nation, is not evil; it is justice.
Gary Zukav, not to put too fine a point on it, is an idiot. This is the same school of thought that leads to such gems as, “Hating bigotry makes you a bigot.” It’s the practice of moral relativism to the point that any action is given equal moral status with any other. You may want to live in that world, but I don’t.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**
What utter bullshit.
To paraphrase: “What you propose as a solution is pointless and unworthy and small-minded. I, on the other hand, know the real answer, but, um, it’s WAY complicated, so I can’t tell you. But take my word for it, you’re wrong, and I’m right.”
I have already forgiven them. I have prayed for God to help them find a way to lose the anger that led them to carry out such an evil act (those that helped plan this, anyway). I hope that in their final moments they could feel in their hearts the awful consequences of what they had chosen and truly have wanted forgiveness. Because they were men, not 3-year-old children as an anology elsewhere in this thread suggested, and men are responsible for their choices.
This forgiveness, however, does not equate with inaction, with NOT doing what we need to do to protect our way of life. I’m not sure what that action is, but it does not preclude a military response. I want a solution that will prevent the possibility of any terrorism ever again, but I don’t hold out hope that this is a possibility. Minimizing terrorism is still a worthy cause, and someone will have to explain how eliminating bin Laden and the infrastructure he employs will not serve that purpose. That would be enough.
**
How responsible the U.S. might have been? HOW RESPONSIBLE THE U.S. MIGHT HAVE BEEN? Please pay close attention: they didn’t kill the U.S. They killed thousands of fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives. They killed policemen and firemen. They killed children. And they knew full well that this would be a consequence of their actions.
We must make sure that this can’t happen again.
Stoid, you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you:
Terrorists will always exist. You’re right, in that every terrorist we kill will be replaced, probably by five more. That will forever be an ongoing battle. Just as there are still murderers and bankrobbers, there will always be terrorists.
HOWEVER, now that we know that they are willing and capable of organizing complex raids that kill thousands, we have to take EVERY step possible to prevent the real threat - which is that these people gain access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. And as things stand today, they can only do that with state assistance. The REAL enemies to liberty are not the terrorists (no more so than serial killers), but the states that are willing to magnify the terrorist’s power until they reach a point that threatens our very way of living.
What we have to do is not just attack the terrorists, but break the chain of funding and support that goes from rogue states into terrorist organizations. Saddam doesn’t have aircraft carriers. If he desires to project his power, the only tool he has at his disposal is terror.
Before he, or any other nation, decide that sending a suicide squad with a kilogram of plutonium dust into Los Angeles is a valid strategic plan, we have to send an unequivocal message that any country who attempts it will be destroyed. Governments must be TERRIFIED of having the U.S. find out that they have supported terrorism in any form, because the punishment will be EXTREME.
You’ll still have terrorists, but they’ll have to go back to throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up discos. They must not have friends ANYWHERE in the world. They have to live like rats, scurrying in the gutters, terrified of bringing anyone into the organization because that person might be a mole for the U.S. or an ally. The first reaction of a rogue government when finding out that terrorists are training in their country must be, “Get them OUT before the great Satan turns our country into rubble.”
We’ll never ensure our safety. What we must do now is ensure our survival, before the first vials of anthrax are released on our shores.
Fortunately, Stoid’s viewpoint is shared by no one in ultimate command of this situation. I mean that with all due personal respect, as I do not know Stoid personally. I just cannot buy what she is selling on this thread.
Stoid, what would you have done, as President, in the face of Pearl Harbor? Humanity has a permanent, indelible ugly side that will rise up now and then. War, inequity, senseless deaths – none of this goes away for humanity. Ever. At times when humanity is at a dark ebb, survival of your own is the only priority.
Wow… how did you arrive at that? I didn’t say anything remotely resembling that, and you certainly don’t know me or my heart, so you have to figure out why you came up with that, it had nothing to do with me.
There are certain things which I have already seen are not going to be tolerated for discussion on this board. They may never be. That is what I was referring to.
I understand this threat… I understand that this threat * has always existed * What I don’t understand is how we go from 18 guys using weapons that are only a step up from rocks and conclude that the next move will be a nuclear holocaust. If they were so close to doing that, don’t you think that they would have done something like that this time?
Yeah, and just what do you think fills the bill? Seriously. And how many innocent people do you think need to die in order for us to make that point? And exactly why is that justified? I’d really like the answers to this.
Because I don’t see the threat of anthrax or nuclear weapons being any greater today than they were a week ago. And a week ago we wouldn’t have dreamed of simply stomping across the earth like Godzilla, smashing anyone in our path, with the singular idea of * terrorizing * (ahem) people into being nicer to us.
I understand how people can arrive at this, I just don’t think it holds up under close scrutiny.
Same thing that Roosevelt did.
Are you under the impression that because I don’t think hate, revenge and war are the answers to what happened Tuesday that I never support military action? Because that’s just a silly leap to make. I’m one of the few people I know who thinks that Hiroshima was the right move…although I think so for different reasons than most other people do.
I’m not mindlessly pacifist, believe me. I just remain unconvinced (Sam Stone has made the best arguments yet, though) that the right thing to do is to declare war on anyone. I think it’s a really bad idea. I think it’s a bad idea for a whole lot of reasons.
But as you say, no one in a position to make these decisions agrees with me, so don’t worry about it.
stoid
Wow… you’re kidding, right? You are on record here as to what you think the wrong response is, for (among other reasons) because, “We don’t know and can never know what their life experiences were and how responsible the US might have been we don’t even know.”
Some additional quotes:
**
That is how I made the enormous leap that you found certain solutions unworthy and pointless and small-minded. Perhaps I missed your point. Doesn’t seem ambiguous to me, and, yes, it does tell me something of what you feel in your heart.
Finally, the following, again, are your words:
**
Please explain what this meant if it was not some form of “I believe I have the real answer, but I’m not going to tell you.”
Confusing, but no problem. This reflects a fundamental difference in our opinions on Tuesday’s atrocities. I have no doubt at all that they were clear, obvious acts of war. You see them as crimes.
Go on. I’m listening.
As for your “different reasons”, most reasonable people supported nuking Hiroshima becasue it ultimately saved many thousands of American and Japanese lives. I trust that you are aware that you are not unique in that particular assessment of the atom bomb’s initial use.
Keep in mind that “going to war” can mean many different things. A formal declaration against a nation may never occur.
Honestly, what’s the difference between going into a nation forcibly to attempt to extract war criminals and flat-out war itself? I don’t think that thin line is worth walking. Those who must die en route to our nation’s objectives, must die, and they will de righteously.
I can assure you that the threat of anthrax, or other biological warfare or contamination, is quite real right now. It’s so real that within moments of the crashes, the CDC had deployed investigators to New York. I cannot provide you with an online cite for this (although one may very well be available); I received this information from my father, who is Director of Facilities Management at the Red Cross’s Jerome Holland Laboratory for the Biomedical Sciences in Rockville, MD, just north of DC. Part of his job requires him to be on the CDC’s emergency notification network.
Had that plane decided to target his laboratory, or nearby Ft. Dietrich, MD, they could have released all sorts of nasties into the air. They don’t even need to hit it with a plane; a ground infiltration would serve the same purpose. As it happens, engineered strains of anthrax are more heat-resistant than the naturally occurring kind, so the fear of one of the terrorists having such a thing in their possession was very real.
In addition, the Holland Lab has a Biohazard Level Three lab on the premises, and Ft. Dietrich has a Biohazard Level Four lab, the highest level of Biohazard containment. One of the things going on at Holland right now is HIV research. Another is research, under a grant from the NIH, on variant strains of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, samples of which they have onhand. They may have other things that I am not permitted to know about. I’m not anywhere near cleared to know what’s at Dietrich.
The CDC in Atlanta has al kinds of beasties, too–smallpox, anthrax, polio . . . lots and lots. Do you want a hijacked 767 flying into that building? I sure as hell don’t.
Regarding the emphasized portion, I was trying to respond to your post with an open mind and with respect. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you in the future. As you yourself said:
Now, on to more substantial things. You said:
I don’t find it that silly an assumption. This is the worst attack ever to occur against us, our sovereign soil, and our citizens. If not now, when? Or are you concerned with the lack of a nation or government as a target? If so, then I can understand your point of view, though I’ll be left to wonder why you haven’t clarified that before now.
Even so, that position will be incongruous with other statements you’ve made. Throughout this thread, you’ve seemed to indicate that the killing of innocents is unavoidable in military combat, and is the most reprehensible idea of military action on our part. Like here:
And here:
And here:
Point 1: If there are times that you support military action, surely you realize that the probability of some “innocents” being killed is high, if not absolutely certain. By stating you would support military action, you would presumably be aware that “collateral damage” will be present and find it acceptable. You state you support Hiroshima, but that you find the idea of “it’s OK if innocents are killed” reprehensible.
Point 2: It has just happened to us. It looks like you’re more upset about potential innocents being killed in some imaginary future than actual dead innocents in NYC and DC. I would think that you, of all people, would be outraged by these actions, but by your own admission you aren’t:
Please explain the seeming dichotomies in your statements.
Finally, you go on to say that you would have done “the same thing Roosevelt did” after Pearl Harbor. Well, he went to war. And one could argue that at least the Japanese attacked a valid military target. Yet turning airplanes filled with passengers into guided missiles to destroy civilian population centers is not justification for going to war?
I’m not trying to convince you, I’m making no argument for or against war or forgiveness. I’m trying to find out what you mean. You’ve made a bundle of contradictory statements that I don’t understand. Do you, or do you not, find the idea of “collateral damage” in the form of dead civilians acceptable during wartime, and how do you reconcile that with your position on military action?
I for one am not at all surprised; it is potential events that really get Stoid’s dander up. Remember, George Bush and the Republican party are actively evil for simply proposing oil drilling in the ANWR; these terrorists who killed upwards of 5,000+ of our citizens are not evil because, you know, they might have felt they had a good reason to do it.