Am I the only person who gets the impression Milum started the thread because he was hoping to see a mass conversion from the Bush naysayers here?
“Oh my god, they beheaded an American! That’s so unspeakably evil, I would have never expected that! I recant everything I ever said against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney! Let’s nuke the bastards! I’m gonna run out right now and urge everyone to re-elect Bush in a LANDSLIDE this November! Damn you, Michael Moore!”
…er, yeah. :rolleyes:
Apparently Milum is one of the several right-wingers who does think that there is a debate to be had. I never had any doubt about it, but he apparently thinks there is some question about whether the US and our military is better, morally speaking, than terrorists. Otherwise, if there were no question about it, such people would never bring up the dumbass comparison between the two. So, here is my response to that debate: if you had any doubt, yes the US military is far better than terrorists, and should goddamned act that way.
If the debate is about whether Americans, or anyone else for that matter, should be beheaded, then count me as a firm no.
Maybe he is conducting some kind of experiment on reaction time of SD liberals to varying purities of bullshit (this post being 100% control)?
No Lockheed-made helicopters patroling every corner and every grain of sand in Arabia.
No massive manhunt done on behalf of the Lockheed contractor.
Sorry, no conversion to Bush from here.
After watching the Nick Berg video and feeling intense outrage, I made a concious decision not to delve too deeply into the details of future beheadings.
Fear and hatred is exactly the reaction that the terrorists want from us, and I for one am not going to give it to them anymore. I will stand resolute and unfazed. I’m proud that we refused to negotiate with these terrorists, as doing so would have just encouraged more terror. I hope Americans in Saudi Arabia have the courage to stay there and keep doing what they’ve been doing instead of giving in to these thugs and leaving, I send my prayers to them and the family of Paul Johnson. I take some level of comfort knowing that those responsible will be tracked down and killed.
But as for “righteous indignation”, I’ve had just about enough of that.
That’s exactly right! As long as any Western “infidels” are walking upon Muslim land, as long as any Muslim country such as Saudi Arabia engages in commerce with us, as long as Western lifestyles can be found on the Internet, televison and/or radio, as long as poverty in Muslim countries exists, and as long as people want to live free as opposed to strict Muslim dogma such as under the Taliban, this will not stop! How can we be such blind ignoramuses? Let’s correct all of the above (I’ll leave it up to Duckster for now as to how exactly to go about this) and also be sure to capitulate to any further grievances and/or demands they might make in the future, and it will stop!
Sure, it will, just like capitulating to bank robbers will make them stop.
Hey, don’t drag him into this!
And Milium, what is the debate here, anyway?
I’m not defending their actions in any way, but I felt I had to point this out: to the terrorists, none of these people are innocent victims. The man they beheaded they most likely see as either an exploiter of their country, or one who materially supports the US. They see this as a war against imperialistic invasion, and, as in any war, the supply and support chains are legitimate targets.
Even the World Trade Center victims weren’t “innocent” in their eyes: they were part of the global capitalistic system that they despise. That building was almost a symbolic monument to capitalism.
To them, these aren’t necessarily “terrorist” acts: they see them as attacks which are part of a war. They cannot muster an army and attack us by conventional means. All they can do is small operations aimed at inflicting as many “enemy” causalties as possible.
Before you pounce on me, please understand that I’m not in any way trying to excuse their actions. But I think that we stand a better chance of defeating our enemy if we understand his mind-set. We have to try to see it from their point of view-- or, to paraphrase the old detective movies, “To catch a terrorist you have to think like a terrorist.” It will help us to prevent further attacks if we know what sorts of targets are appealing to them because of their symbolic meaning.
Righteous Indignation is a Very Bad Way to make decisions.
Those of you here who are Americans have seen how it affects your soldiers (Abu Ghraib). I have seen how it affects ours :(. It only makes us behave more like the terrorist animals we rightly abhor.
On the other hand, rolling over and playing dead is - of course - no solution either.
The only thing resembling a solution? Take a deep breath. Keep your cool. Understand what makes the enemy tick and what can be done that may hurt them - rather than try to lash out against them in ways we know would hurt us if we were the target, which probably score zilch against them (Hint: hurting the innocent civilans amidst which they hide only strengthens them). And Don’t get mad; get even!
Dani
Considering what (rape, torture, molestation, murder) goes on a daily and weekly basis in the US alone, much less the entire world, the beheading of one man really isn’t that shocking to me. I know that it is good copy for the news media like when someone pretty is kidnapped or killed on a slow news day. The stabbing death and rumoured dismemberment of a man 60 miles south of me didn’t get even get on the news ticker at Fox or CNN AFAIK.
I do think beating men to death and killing 10s of thousands of innocent civillians in bombing campaigns, especially if under false pretenses, is worse than the death by beheading of one man in a dangerous place.
I doubt that Al-Quaeda is big on kissing pigs, and I don’t doubt that launching an atomic bomb on a US city would make them as pleased as punch. Of course, Muslim genocide on much wider scale than one city, by nuclear means, is often fantacized about by US vengeance seekers on the internet all the time. I left gun boards because of such sentiment.
You seem to be missing something… mainly, the point.
The point, you see, is not to appease Osama and crew. The point is to appease the other 99% of Muslims who want the same thing most other people on the planet want - peace and prosperity. One they see that Al Qaeda and the likes are just extremist assholes, the terrorists will find it much harder to operate within their own land. As long as we continue to do things seemingly intentionally to piss off those 99% of Muslims, they will see Osama as more and more correct, and do more and more to support him against us.
Um, actually, banks do capitulate to bank robbers.
Simple.
“Would Al Qaeda enjoy it if they detonated an atomic bomb capable of decapitating everyone (?) in an American city (seemingly, this is different than any other cities, probably being better and more important)?”
I don’t think there is much debate here - of course they would enjoy it - but I posit the alternate;
Would the American right enjoy it if we went willy-nilly around overthrowing governments we don’t like on loose premises?
Amen to that.
Milium, do you expect us to rant and get indignant over every atrocity commited in the world? If so, we’ll be here for ever. The beheading of Paul Johnson is a horrible crime, but it deserves no special status.
If I followed your logic, I’d make a post berating people for not talking about the genocide in Rwanda, or the holocaust.
Zagadka, thank you for answering a point I neither missed nor was addressing, and then accusing *me *of missing the point. **Duckster **is another one of those who thinks we must “understand” the terrorists, and that it is our failure to do so that will cause terrorism to continue: i.e., “As long as “we” in the West fail to grasp the attitudes and motivations of the terrorists from their point of view, not only will this not stop, but it will get worse.”
In other words, the continuing threat of terrorism is our basically our fault because we continue to “fail to grasp the attitudes and motivations of the terrorists from their point of view.” Every bad guy has his point of view and motivations. Hitler and Stalin had their reasons, and they felt perfectly justified in what they were doing. Jerks and assholes in general think their point of view is the correct one and everone else is a schmuck. The intent of my post was to show that the issues that **Duckster **wants us to understand and commiserate with are far too complex and unsolvable for our “grasping of their attitudes and motivations” to any good.
And as far as your silly attempt at superiority by pointing out that banks do indeed capitulate to bank robbers, kindly point out where I indicated it was *banks *that would foster more robberies by capitulating. I believe it would be clear to anyone not attempting to assume a condescending stance that I was speaking of society or the nation as a whole, as was **Duckster **in regard to the terrorists.
And not to speak for **Milum **of course, but I believe his OP was an attempt to point out what he perceives as hypocracy on the part of the anti-war lefties in this forum who were so horrified over the prisoner abuse in Iraq, but were strangely silent in their reaction to a much worse atrocity on the part of the terrorists, because to express anger and outrage would add fuel to the fire of their opponents who favor the actions being taken by the U.S. to combat terrorism.
Well, nothing is 100% anyone’s fault, but there is that element to it.
I seem to recall some ancient old Chinese guy saying something about understanding your enemy. I dunno, probably completely irrelevant. :rolleyes:
The part where you said, with utmost sarcasm, “Sure, it will, just like capitulating to bank robbers will make them stop”?
I dunno, maybe I’m just an idiot, but it sure sounds like you’re implying that banks shouldn’t give in to bank robbers, lest they invoke more.
Lemme get this straight… are you saying (or rather, implying, since you don’t seem to say anything you mean) that the “anti-war lefties” were absolutely silent and uncaring over 9/11?
Thank you for this rather impotent response.
It’s one thing to know why your enemies are your enemies, it’s another to attempt to try to negate the threat they pose by figuring out what they want and why they want it, and then giving it to them, as Duckster’s post seems to suggest.
As I said before, I believe it should be clear I was talking about giving bank robbers a pass on their crimes because after all, they have their reasons. And as I’ve already explained in my last post, I was talking about society as a whole and not banks per se. Don’t you think it’s more than a little disingenuous to continue to feign ignorance to my point even after it has been spelled out for you?
You’re welcome. I’ll make it clearer for you.
PART OF IT IS OUR FAULT.
Well, that would be part of the best solution to the problem, but for some reason, I take it that you’ll side with “shooting them all in the head.”
Oh, I see. I was confused because, you know, that has nothing to do with what anyone suggested. O_o
Well, it seems that this is more a subject for IMHO than GD, but I’ll opine that Al Quaida would enjoy atomically decapitating an American city.
Maybe we’re meant to be debating which city they will choose 