Killing terrorists is a good thing. If the Bush administration could only figure out that killing terrorists is a better strategy than creating safe havens for them (Iraq) or coddling the sponsors of terrorism (Saudi Arabia), they might get more support from the American people.
They are using this terminology for two related reasons:
-
Despite the leanings on this board, most Americans would love to see any so called terrorists tortured and killed on live TV so it is a popular and vote gaining idea especially for the Democrats who are perceived as being soft on crime in general. It is a great move for the Kerry campaign.
-
They are referring to terrorists in an abstract sense, not individual people. Military troops sent to break up entire cells will have to kill many of them. That is not to say that any high level terrorists like Osama wouldn’t be subject to trial.
Exactly. It is an offshoot of his “Wizard of Oz” campaign. “Pay no attention to that liberal Senator behind the curtain! I’m a war hero, dammit!”
No, sorry. Most Americans would love to have actual terrorists killed quickly and efficiently, with as little loss of life among civilians and U.S. troops as possible. There are, of course, some vocal extremists who would fit the characterization you gave, but to paint “most Americans” with that brush demonizes an entire people, which is something the left objects to vehemently when the right does it.
Like it or not, there are terrorists out there. Not just “so called” terrorists. Terrorists. Mind you, the ones we know were actively working against us were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, but they are out there. The invasion of Iraq distracted us dangerously from hunting down Al Qaeda and the Taliban and, yes, killing them. That’s what soldiers do, you know. It’s not pleasant and it’s not desirable, but sometimes it is necessary.
Do I think that gives anyone the right to detain people without access to due process (whether captured as a criminal or as a P.O.W.)? Certainly not. Do I think that gives the U.S. the right to invade Iraq for violations of U.N. directives, without U.N. support? No.
But killing terrorists – people who are actively trying to kill civilians – is an appropriate action for a government to take in order to protect its citizens.
I cannot imagine anything worse for the US than to capture OBL and his top leadership alive (and attempt to try them). In the first case, the ACLU would hire lawyers to defend their “First Amedment Rights”. Second, many radical lawyers would use the trial to attack the USA…we probbabl;y would hear a defense consisting of how OBL could NOT be guilty (he was holed up in a cave when 9/11 happened).
Thirs, we would have every ayatollah issueing “fatwas” telling their people that its OK to murder Americans.
Kill them all, let the historians sort it out.
Please stop calling it a declared war on terrorism. Otherwise, please direct me to a copy of the declaration and the articles of war. I will not accept the USA PATRIOT Act as being such a declaration. A declaration that a state of war exists is a diplomatic instrument, executed between sovreign states.
Terrorism is not a legitimate tool. However, it IS a tool, and it is nonsensical to pretend to make war upon a tool. It is also a crime. Therefore, it IS a legal matter.
I know it’s a cliche by now, but if Osama bin Laden successfully forced us to change our own rules, then he won, even if we dismember him in a public spectacle and have his head mounted atop the Statue of Liberty’s torch.
And these are the kinds of Americans who disgust me. You are a simple creature with a simple idea for a complex problem. I wish nothing but a pox on you and your ilk and hope that if the time comes, common sense, honor and the law prevail while prejudice, hatred, xenophobia and emotion take a back seat for once.
Sam
Let’s bake them a nice cake and give them a massage.
Amen bro.
Now why does that not surprise me? :rolleyes:
Actually, it was more like “Kill the Krauts” and “Kill the Japs”. I don’t know that we want to emulate the disturbing propaganda that was being spewed during WWII.
As others have pointed out, it’s Kerry not Bush who has been trumpetting this phrase more frequently of late. Bush has expressed similar sentiments many times in the past, but this OP is particularly picking up on these quotes, from the Sept 30th debate:
It’s a campaign slogan, but I have to admit it sounded awfully harsh when I heard Kerry repeat this in the debate.
Yeah, it was definitely a talking-point for Kerry. And I know exactly why he’s doing it - he knows he can’t win the election if he doesn’t. If he were to say anything about jailing terrorists, the republicans would be all over him like mold on a piece of cheese. Look how ruthlessly Clinton was criticized for what was called a “law enforcement approach to terrorism” (as though that’s automatically a bad thing). And the real irony is that Clinton didn’t take such an appoach; he actually issued a directive to assassinate bin Laden.
The truth is that Bush and Kerry are both correctly reading the pulse of the average American. And sadly, the average American wants to hear that crap.
It isn’t nonsensical to make war upon those who use terrorism as a tool.
I do not wish to harm the innocent. But in the case of someone like Bin Laden, who has plainly made his declaration of war against us, I see no problem with killing him on sight. If he surrenders, then he can go before a tribunal like any other war crimminal but he is not subject to our domestic legal system anymore than Hitler would have been.
Nothing like a nice fallacy of the excluded middle to clarify the terms of the debate, is there, Mr. Bolger?
It doesn’t surprise you because you lack the maturity to let go of a petty squabble between yourself and somebody (me) who spouts as much bullshit as yourself.
Thanks for the update. How exactly is “terrorist” a vulgar slang word for any group of people?
Observe the fact that slogans, rally cries, impassioned statements tend to express extremes.
C’mon, mom never said she was going to kill you when you acted up?
Never been to a sports game where somebody yelled “Kill the (insert team name here)”?
Typically in sports, while people yell “kill” what they really want is “too defeat”… They yell “kill” because their words express intensity, not demand.
Politicians are just tapping into that emotion and using it.
Yes, and he said something similar this morning. That’s not the same as ‘kill them all’ to me, but I was only partly kidding with the “bumper sticker” line. He’s speaking in soundbytes. In a longer paper or discussion you know he would talk about the importance of policing and intelligence efforts and how other countries have to pitch in, etc. But that’s supposed to be a soundbyte and he is trying to show strength. I don’t go for the ‘Americans are bloodthirsty’ thing, but many do want to be reassured that their leader or potential leader will do whatever it takes to stop terrorism. Saying ‘hunt them down and kill them’ expresses that better than ‘jail them or kill them if necessary.’ If Kerry said anything different, Bush would say he’s not willing to be decisive and wouldn’t do everything in his power. The most nuance-free approach to terrorism is not the the best one, but rhetorically I think neither of them has a choice.
I think it’s pretty obvious that if propaganda of that type got moving, you’d hear things other than terrorist. You know, like “rag head” and “sand nigger” and others I’d never heard before a few years ago. We don’t need more of that.
I don’t think so. Viet Nam was all about killing “Charlie” or the “Viet Kong”. The slogans, while still emotional, paid some heed to political correctness and avoided racial or ethnic variations.
I disagree that the statement “kill the terrorists” will devolve into “Kill the muslims” or “kill the arabs”. Your average idiot is already saying that , but he’s been saying that regardless of any political statement.
Wow, I agree with Bubba on something. :eek:
Sam
If it is Bin Laden himself, I agree and I would gladly pull the trigger personally, given the chance. Admittedly, this is emotion and hatred talking (I hate him). Just so long as you understand, I am not for the wholesale killing everyone else in the country.
Whatever.
Strawman. When did I say it was?
You suggested that “kill the [blank]” is o.k. because we’ve said the same thing during other wars. And I pointed out that we don’t necessarily want to use the things said during those other wars as our model. I’m not sure what you thought you read.
Sometimes they do; I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing.
I don’t think Kerry and Bush are speaking figuratively in the same manner as that to which you refer.
I agree that they are tapping into emotions and using it. It bothers me. Apparently it does not bother you.