There is another area that need to be focused on as we embark to destroy terrorism. It is creating new terrorists among US citizens that are shooting anyone with brown skin as it happened in Mesa, Arizona. This is a serious matter and can comeback and hunt us, with internal divisions - Americans against Americans. Surprising fact is that the US Government did not say anything about it. It looks as if, they want to save White House, Pentagon, Congress and a lot of rich folks at Wall Street. I am sure, that is not an image US wants to project.
To date, that's an image the US hasn't cared less whether or not it projects. Oh, and those kinds of crimes aren't going to be addressed as terrorism in the US. When they're done BY Americans TO Americans we like to call it "hate crimes". Kind of like the bombing of churches and abortion clinics - we never call it terrorism. Terrorism is what foreigners do, we do "hate crimes". I personally don't see any difference besides the labels themselves, but you can bet America does. At least so far. Maybe our eyes will open to the truth of the matter.
It's been asked what war will accomplish. What I'd like to know is what letting them kill us will accomplish?
RIDDLE ME THIS: Yes! <i>What will the forthcoming military strikes against the Rag-Heads accomplish</i>? <b>Answer: The hope is to bring an end to the "mindless" slaughter of people. </b> <i>Dealers in death only understand the reciprocated death dealt to them . In the same way, businessmen understand only profit & loss. Monday, Sept.17, 2001, is a good example. What happened on Wall Street?</i> <b>If it is death & destruction that the Rag-Heads live for, then give them so much that their cups runneth over, and them become sick with the bounty of the harvest that they now will reap! And now let the United States help this hateful group of war mongers to eat of this bitter harvest!</b>
I like the thought. The operation will start in 2 days. And since Talliban is running scared, I think we will solve this problem.
That line of thinking goes both ways. We're going be so much of it that OUR cup runneth over too. In fact, it's pretty much that line of thinking that got us this in the first place. Setting out to kill a bunch of innocent civilians makes us just like the "enemy".
You may be under the impression,from my posts,that I am strongly in favor of war. Under "normal"circumstances,I totally abhor violence of any kind - but these are not "normal"circumstances,& I believe that terrorism of this kind will never be stopped by negotiation or diplomacy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree, odin, but it won't be stopped by going into other countries and killing THEIR innocent civilians either. It won't be stopped by simply killing or jailing the actual perpetrators either. I'm not saying that killing or jailing the perps shouldn't be part of the solution, I think it should. But just killing or jailing people is not going to rid the world of the problem. If we approach terrorism with the idea that killing and jailing every terrorist we can find is going to eventually rid us of the threat, we're going to be in the exact same situation Isreal is in, or Northern Ireland or a myriad of other places we don't get to hear about constantly. Negotiation and diplomacy need to be a part the solution too. And I think we, as the powerful, need to understand that negotiation and diplomacy does not consist of giving the weak and ultimatum and blasting them to hell if they don't comply.
felix-Negotiation and diplomacy are all well and good, but it has been displayed that these guys don't want to negotiate or be diplomatic. Or did I miss something when the jets slammed into the buildings?
Oxygen I think you misunderstand me. Obviously, whoever is responsible for these recent attacks is completely deaf to a reasoned debate of any kind. And even if Osama bin Laden isn't the guilty party, he turns a deaf ear on reason too. And so does the Taliban and so does Sadam Hussein and so do probably 99.9999% of the current terrorists in the world, and they're also guilty of crimes against humanity. I think the best thing to do with them, would be to imprison them, or kill them if they can't be caught alive. I personally would prefer to see imprisonment because that would deny their followers the martyrs, and the angry, cruel part of me thinks it would be much more defastating to the imprisoned than anything else. All they could do is pace their cage like an animal instead of getting to die or kill gloriously for their cause. But we have to be careful about ignoring the situations of the people in other countries, too. It's tricky, because governments like the Taliban or Sadam Hussein's regime probably should not be allowed to continue. That's where it starts to get really tricky, though, the people of Iraq and afghanistan would probably be grateful if we could topple their current governments and help them install one they would like to install. But there comes a time when one wears out one's welcome. We need to be careful about always going in for our own interests, and leaving things in a bigger mess than they were in before we came, then just leaving a devastated country to the next wack that can gain some power and take over the rule. We either need to go all the way with being a peace loving country that can learn when, where and in what way it's prudent to stick our nose in other people's business. OR we need to go all the way and Set out to make the world a "free democracy". We're so "wishy-washy" about it. Although, I don't think any of that, or anything else I've heard, is going to rid the world of "terrorists". Actually accomplishing THAT task is going to be up to evolution or GOD or aliens whatever everyone's respective "greater power" might be, if you even have one (tryin' not leave anyone out). Who know's, maybe it's even important that we keep our warlike instincts honed for some reason. I'm fooling myself if I think I understand that "need" better anyone else. I do my best to stay away from violence. I pretty much would prefer to be someone's friend than their enemy. But I DO have a hot temper, and part of me does like a fight. It took me a while to learn that in most situations It's really easy to NOT get into a fight with someone. At this point in my life, someone would pretty much have to attack me to get me to fight them. But if the attack comes, I will definitely fight, and you can bet I'll use every dirty trick I either know or have seen used or have had used on me or just comes to mind at a moment of clarity... anything that will gain me the quickest most decisive win possible (unless they get me first, of course). That can make for a nagging conscience sometimes (or an aching broken body) even if I WAS attacked. But if someone were to step out behind me and crack me on head, leaving me unconscious, I would not get up and attack someone because I thought they MIGHT be the one(s) that did it.
Is there a difference between a terrorist killing one person and 1000, except the numbers? Is one any worse than the other?
Read the bit near the bottom of this page. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21752.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not in my opinion. I guess there's a difference in the sheer volume of difficult emotions they cause. But morally? What is morality, anyway? That's another one of those strictly relative concepts, right?.
I would think that one is a 1000 times worse than the other. I would also say that if diplomacy were an option that we should take it. But it is not an option so what else is left for those who would send someone to their death for the chance to take others with them. How do you reason with this? You can not. But notice that the leaders fo not get out there to do this butchery. They send others instead. Could it be that the leaders fear what they would so willingly commit their followers to?
That what WE're talking about doing, by sending troops into other countries to conduct military operations. Does the logic apply to one and not the other?
Posted by wet1 This is the type of thinking that puts us in the hot water. Normally people think that killing one person is 1/1000 less bad than killing 1000 people. Then when one dies, no body does anything about it. And if the dead person's family decides to take revenge, it turns into 1000 times stronger.
felix- I guess I did misunderstand you. Sorry 'bout that. I agree that hitting just anybody is useless. We have to get the right people. I see "the right people" as being defined as terrorists, regardless of whose country they've attacked. I am outraged when I hear of terrorists attacking in other countries. I am probably in a minority that doesn't think "Oh, it's in Ireland? As long as it's not over here..." Someone on rotten.com pointed out that most people feel shock about a tragedy until they learn how far removed it is from them geographically. Then the further it gets away, the less impact it has. When a building collapses on people in a far away place, we feel sympathy as decent human beings should, but we don't demand the building inspector's keister in court. Would we Americans feel such anger and outrage if the terrorists had flown into an office building in Rome, Tokyo, or Johannesberg (sp)? What if they had instead careened out of the sky aiming for a village in Cambodia or a tribe of Australian bushmen (for whatever reason)? Can we expect anybody from another country to feel as outraged as we do right now? As members of the human race, we should feel this level of anger whenever terrorists strike at anybody, regardless of who they are or how far away. I have wondered since I was a kid and first became aware of the concept of terrorism why the civilized world didn't band together and hunt them down and put an end to it. Why do we see a strike in France and say "It's France's problem."? Why hasn't the idea of unity against terrorists been implemented before?
