In know way am I suggesting killing innocents to make a point. I’m saying that we kill our enemies who participate in the killing of Americans and stop worrying about collateral damage. We should publicly and loudly state that innocents are dying as a result of our enemies actions against us. Right now they believe we will hesitate to strike back out of fear of harming the women and children they hide among. They’ve been right for too long.
I know all the arguments against what I’m suggesting, I’ve been making them for years. I’m either worn out from a long hard week and overreacting to recent events, or I’ve changed my mind about this subject. I’m just not sure which. Sorry if that makes for a lukewarm argument.
My reasoning, or rather my understanding of your argument, is that there are two main points.
People, when hit with a big stick, will fold and give up.
Hey, someone hit me with a big stick! I’m going to hit them with a BIGGER stick!
The two are in total conflict. I’m saying that if your response is going to be, as you say, disproportionate violence, on the grounds that if you use disproportionate violence it will stop someone in their tracks, then the fact that you yourself are reacting to that violence not by giving up but by offering disproportionate violence on your part, you’re invalidating your own premise. You yourself are the proof otherwise.
Let me put it this way. Imagine if you were attacked without regard to collateral damage. The attackers concerned make it clear that they will continue to do this. Assuming you survive, what’s your response?
If you look up Operation Gladio then read Noam Chomskys hegemony or survival you will see that the American government do not need anyone thats anti US because they actually do most of this themselves, but most people don’t want to know the truth unfortunately
I think you overestimate the mentality of the mob, did the African Americans think Asian Americans were responsible for the Rodney King verdict, cause they were the owners of the majority of the shops that were burned. They are angry and want to strike out at anything that is even tangentially related, I’m sure if an American movie theatre was in Benghazi they’d have burned that to the ground not that they would have been responsible for the movie either.
We have the biggest sticks. And innocent Americans, among many others around the world have been directly attacked. Our enemies do not even consider there to be such a thing as collateral damage. They will kill us, and even their own indiscriminately, and take pleasure in doing it.
Of course, remember, it took centuries for Christianity to mature to the point where it was able to tolerate blasphemy. I’m sympathetic to Islam; it hasn’t grown up yet. It will. It’s rough to ask them to mature overnight, but this is the information age, and censorship, let alone violence, is not the proper response to undesired information.
It’s just over 476 years since William Tyndale was strangled by the Christian church for the sin/crime of translating the Bible into English. Since then, Christianity has gotten better. Islam will too.
And? Let’s say the boot is on the other foot. We have the smallest sticks - we will inevitably lose any escalation of conflict. We give up immediately, do we?
And here’s the truly depressing part; you may think there’s a thing as collateral damage, but you’re prepared to ignore it. You are prepared to kill them indisciminately. And frankly, and with all due respect, from the way you’re posting i’m not entirely sure you have the moral high ground on that last one, either.
However, either way, this is all the more reason not to provoke more violence on their part, tempting as it may seem after years of non-success to grasp any straws that show themselves avaliable. If you offer violence, they’ll offer it back, because when they offered it to you your reaction was to offer it back.
You and I have serious disagreements about the English language if you think “stop worrying about collateral damage” and “disproportionate retaliation” means anything other than killing people you know aren’t guilty to make a point. It’s sort of like you’re ignoring everything the U.S. has done counterterrorism-wise in the last 11 years. Missile strikes against suspected terrorists regardless of location are going up and up. If things like that don’t strike you as serious responses to terrorism, I don’t know what you expect to see. In 2001 Al Qaeda thought it could smack the U.S. and get it to pull out of the Middle East; the people carrying the AQ flag today know better. They’re not confused about that and they’re not going to think twice about attacking because they’ll get killed. They think a warrior’s death is a good thing. The thing to do is stop the attacks you can and allow their violent and useless and fanatical agenda alienate everyone else in their society - they are much better at killing other Muslims than killing Americans.
Who do you think is unaware of this?
Where exactly has the U.S. been afraid to strike against terrorists lately?
It’s also chock-full of people who don’t like Al Qaeda and who shouldn’t be blown up for being in the same country.
I think Chris Stephens, an Arabist’s Arabist would be utterly disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread and the ignorance and hatred displayed towards an extremely complex and ancient culture he loved, had spent most of his adult life immersed within, and whose people he’d dedicated literally decades of his life to helping whilst still serving the country of his birth.
You are right. I shouldn’t have said disproportionate retaliation because it does mean killing innocents just to make a point. I do not believe in killing any innocents, but I don’t think that should stand in the way of killing terrorists. I only intend to say that we should not let fear of collateral damage stand in the way of killing our enemies when we know where they are. I’m sure you aren’t thrilled with that either, but I want to clear up the area where we disagree.
Most of the people in most of the Muslim countries. They are either ignorant or willfully disregard any voice that does not reinforce the concept of western hatred of Islam, particularly American. We have to kill our enemies and pay whoever we can to go in and tell these people why we have done this, without whitewashing it. And let them know it will continue as long as we are targets.
I may be wrong, but I believe we know the location of many terrorists and kill them at a rate of 10 to 1 for each attack against an American, almost instantly. I think we don’t do this because of the fear of collateral damage or resulting instability, and I think we have to stop that. If I’m wrong, that means we are pursuing the path I recommend and killing every terrorist that we can find.
It’s more important to me to stop the killing of innocent Americans than worry about the minority of Libyans who could be called innocent. If the madman had been smart enough to distribute the wealth of Libya they’d still be in the wholesale terrorism business.
So? He died. And it didn’t change anything; something else will happen in a week or a month or a year and we’ll be debating this again. I don’t think free speech will work. There’s just too much of a shell of religious zealotry, government dominance and, yes, our own terrible foreign policy to crack anytime soon. It may be an unsolvable problem.
That’s highly unlikely. Feuds where people spend their time exchanging atrocities have a history of going on indefinitely until either one side is destroyed. If we slaughter people - and we have - we just create more enemies. To use a specifically Islamic example; has the willingness of Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other stopped the violence between them?
We murder people indiscriminately, just for being near someone who we speculate might be a “terrorist”. “Terrorist” being “anyone who doesn’t love America enough to please us”. Last I heard even our own military estimated that half the people we kill in drone strikes are innocent; the real number is no doubt higher.
The fact is, we are terrorists. We keep trying to get our way by terrorizing people through the threat and application of violence against innocents; that’s terrorism. America’s attitude is a classic example of “terrorist is what the big army calls the little army”; outside our own borders we aren’t behaving better than our enemies, we just have more resources to do our killing with.
On that basis they will not stop killing us whatever we do, so we might as well let their actions lead to their own annihilation. We will win in the end if we are determined to do so.
And that’s all I’ll say tonight on this subject, because the more I write the more I think I’ve gone to the dark side. I have to figure this all out. It would be really stupid to keep defending my position if I don’t actually believe in it.
Stop murdering innocent people, exploiting those less powerful, propping up dictators and so on; then wait a generation or two for our victims and their immediate relatives to die or grow old and tired.