Both the Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto have repeatedly stressed on American televsion that this is not true. They say that the pro-taliban element is a very vocal minority concentrated in a couple of cities close to the Afghanistan border. It is still a concern, of course.
While no one-line slogan (like those in the OP) can even begin to fully explain a position on a matter as complex as this, they do speak to a general sentiment. So as a stand-alone statement, they don’t mean anything. They have to be considered in the context they are used.
I think the ideas behind these slogans are valid, and need to be considered. Before I get into it a little more I just want to share my favorite slogan of this type, which was displayed for quite a while on a large banner at the memorial in Union Square here in Manhattan:
Now, while it is easy to see that what the terorists did was awful, unexcusable, and truly evil, the question “How do we end terrorism?” is NOT easy to answer. There are legitimate arguments to be made for the fact that dropping more bombs is only going to make things worse.
I find no problem with people suggesting that violence is not the answer (Bombing for Peace?), nor with people suggesting that events like this are often our own policies and practices catching up to us and biting us in the ass (bin Laden: CIA trained). There is some validity to both these points. There is NO obvious answer to any of this. It is a very complex and delicate issue that concerns all of humanity. To just assume we can bomb our way out of all this hatred may be a bad choice. I’m not really sure, but I welcome discussion and opinions others might have as I try to decide for myself what I think is really the best way to proceed.
The idea of bloody dead humans anywhere does not make me proud, does not bring the towers back, does not bring the lives back, and it damn sure doesn’t make me want to cheer. It worries me. I think to just be totally into the idea of war, without reference to the possibility of peace, is the wrong way to approach the situation. The death of thousands of people is something I find disturbing, no matter who those people are.
The problem is one of deterrence. Can we stop a whole lotta violence with a measured amount of violence now? Maybe, and if so, then we must do it. But it is not a definate that we can stop any violence with more violence. Other ways must be discussed and considered. I don’t begrudge anyone putting up mesages of peace, especially when there is the potential for nuclear war. From the OP:
A valid possibility, and one that must be considered. A similar poster could be made, however, with the same picture saying “If we kill more innocent people, this will happen”. This is an equally valid stance. Whichever side you come in on, you should listen carefully and compassionately to the other side. This is not a time to be calling people stupid for wanting peace. This IS a time to discuss how we can achieve peace. If a couple slogans get people talking about these issues, more power to them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by irishgirl *
**hmmmm
justice. what about looking back to WW II?
nuremburg trials, the isreali executions of nazi criminals, that sorta thing? get bin laden and the members of his organisation, and TRY them. nice and legal.
OK, let’s look at WW II. Do you think that we just had our detectives show up at the bunker saying “Mr Hitler, we have a warrant for your arrest!”? We had to utterly crush the Axis by military might before their could be any trials, in case you forgot. We had to kill an awful lot of civilians in the process, unfortunately.
I just don’t understand this “let’s catch 'em and put him on trial”. This isn’t COPS. This is war.
What’s to understand? On a global stage you’re looking to punish the people responsible for an atrocity, whilst demonstrating to a hostile audience that it isn’t a crusade against a whole faith. In a scenario where you could identify a fairly small number of people as the key players, a good way of achieving your goals is to capture them and try them.
The slight complication with this plan though, is the rather obviously difficult capture of a group of well defended people who are probably quite happy to achieve martyr status.
Rest of World on Afghanistan’s doorstep: DING DONG!
A: Yes?
RoW: Hi. We understand you have a Mr. bin Laden in there. Would you be so kind as to send him out, so we can put him on trial, nice ‘n’ legal?
A: No.
RoW (huddles to consult each other, then return): Um, please?
A: No.
RoW: Look, it’s really rather important and we’d appreciate it if you’d –
A: No.
RoW: It’s just that he’s apparently done something truly awful and we’d –
A: No! Fuck off, you oppressive capitalist swine-pigs! You want to conquer our land and take our women!
RoW: What? No no no. Look, all we want is to –
A: No! SLAM
For all those jerks who dont want to see any terrorist die i think this would be an effective strategy
Killing Osama Bin Laden will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire his comrades to take hostages to demand his release. Therefore, I suggest we do neither. Let the Special Forces, Seals or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex change operation. Then we return her to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban.