Yep, and I this issue is what sparks some of the emotions in this discussion. My comments aknowledge the separation of “terrorists” from the peaceful people of Afghanistan and anybody in Iraq. That separation is easy to see in spoken and written words. The desire to spare innocent people is not the opposite of the desire to kill terrorists. But the action of killing terrorists has caused the death of innocent people. So, I understand some of the heat generated here even though I think the political rhetoric is benign.
I didn’t say it didn’t bother me, I said it doesn’t tweak me as much as others on this board.
When a politician says he wants to kill terrorists I recognize it not only as a rhetorical statement but also an ineffective statement. Killing terrorists is an action. Stopping terrorism should be the goal.
Hmm, my first pit posting…
I think it all comes down to what paradigm you use to frame the struggle against radical isalmic “militants” who believe that democracy is an afront to God because is has man usurping the role of leader from God, and who have decided to bring about the downfall of democracy by violence.
In the law enforcement paradigm, killing is not to be desired.
In the war paradign, killing is one of many valid options for denying your enemy the means to bring about your own downfall. In war, if you can take prisonners, you do so. If they resist, then you “neutralise” them at least risk to yourself. You do not try to save their life at increased risk to yourself, the way, say, a SWAT team would to try to end a hostage situation.
So then, it comes down to whether this is a war. Think for a moment how our concept of war evolved:
Say in the 18th & 19 centuries, in the Napoleonic wars for example, war:
-had to be declared between nations and their respective government
-was fought in a way to try to spare civilians, women and children especially
-was fought exclusively by uniformed troops identifying themselves before hand with the right flags and such.
-was fought with rules that frowned upon “unfair” tactics such as ambush
-was fought mostly over ground and territory.
Over the years, fewer and fewer, if any, of these rules still apply. Think about the bomings of Dresden and Liverpool. I don’t think Korea was a declared war.
Think about Vietnam, where the US was shocked by VC tactics of using kids and women as combattants, where teritory was no longer the point, and where mines and ambush was a preferred means of fighting on both sides.
My point is that war is evolving. There are so many trans-national entities nowadays, from Shell & Proctor & Gamble, to Amnesty International, the WWF, PETA, etc. etc. Al-Quaeda is just another one. I think the concept that conflict between entities is only war when the entities are nations is becoming outdated.
An organised, trans-national entity has deemed that it must use whatever means necessary, including violence and war-like acts against our civilians, to initially curtail the influence of, and eventually eliminate, democracy, for religious, non-negotiatable reasons.
The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, those may be overblown cliches.
I think the war on Al-Quaeda and it’s associates is an accurate, technical description of the conflict, and that we must capture when possible, kill when necessary, to win it.
The question of whether Kerry or Bush can do it better, is, I think, up to the American electorate for now, and historians later.
Kerry didn’t say “kill when necessary”; he just said “kill”.
Does Mr. Bolger like cake and massages?
You do realize what would happen if he did, right? Bush and co. would be on TV within minutes saying “The terrorists won’t hesitate to kill us, but John Kerry will hesitate to kill them.” Yeah, that would be a stupid misinterpretation, but as I said, this is soundbytes. You don’t give someone the opportunity to distort what you say. And one of the Republican knocks on Kerry is that he’d be weak and indecisive as a leader, so he’s talking that much tougher.
Yes, which is why I already made similar points in post #2 AND post #32. Missed those, huh?
And I said it, too. I guess at this point everybody either gets it or isn’t going to get it.
Oh, well you said it like you were informing me of something I didn’t already know. I thought you had misunderstood my position in this.
This video from Fallujah ought to satisfy at least a few. Originally linked by Frankenstein Monster.
I think the only people in favor of that are Ann Coulter and perhaps ralph124c. Kill the bad guys wherever they are; protect the innocent wherever they are. There’s no inherent conflict there.
What, pray tell, would you advocate should be done with he mosnters who murdered 39 innocent people last night? Get them a nice cell and appoint them a lawyer?
Of course, they are misunderstood! that’s the problem really, it could happen to anyone. :smack:
Simpleton.
You mean that there’s a difference between “post reply” and “start new thread”?
Do you really think that a one-word reply to such an eye-rolling post required a new thread?
IMNSOABO, they’ve committed themselves to war (in their own peculiar fashion) on us. The fact that they are not a nation-state and don’t have thousands of poor kids who got drafted into the military that we have to kill isn’t making me want any less to get rid of them.
Truth be told, the modern understanding of war is still grounded in the 17th and 18th centuries. And it’s a poor understanding; it thinks of huge armies standing up in a line and killing each other. But that’s not mkodern war and it wasn’t even always ancient war.
You just made that up, right? I have no idea what that means.
No. Actually I spaced on that one. I thought that ralph124c had meant to post a new thread and that Gawd was chastising him for cluttering this thread instead of creating another. Even though he had a thread-appropriate post ralph124c’s bolded subject line caused a total misread on my part.
It should be noted that my post was pre-morning coffee fix, not that it is any excuse
OK, you win. Kill every living thing for miles around, salt the earth, radiate it so nothing ever grows again. Meanwhile the people who did it are far far away, laughing. Good solution. Why not hunt down and assassinate the ones who actually did it, if you can find them, or go after the “available” people who are in the same organization and/or gave the order? Terrorist groups usually like to brag about what they do, and our intelligence people might have some names by now.
Heh. 
So was mine, I wasn’t even motivated enough to sign my name.
Sam