CNN --JUST A WHILE AGO REPORTED

[Anonymous]

Okay, look, it's really quite simple.

A terrorist comes round and kills one of your kids.
You catch him and he stands trial and goes to prison.

Terrorist 1, you minus 1.

A terrorist comes round and kills another one of your kids.
You catch him and he stands trial and goes to prison.

Terrorist 2, you minus 2.

A terrorist comes round and kills another one of your kids.
You catch him and he stands trial and goes to prison.

Terrorist 3, you minus 3.

See? It's not going anywhere is it? The terrorists are getting three squares a day or are sent home as heroes while your kids are on the marble slab.

There's no reasoning with religeous zealots. When it gets to this stage you have to try and stop them before they commit the act.

 

[Anonymous]

Do the Maths

A terrorist comes round and kills 1 of your kids. You kill him.
You: 1 Terrorists: 1
Anther terrorist comes round and kills another of your kids. You kill him, and one of his friends, to stop this friend from killing in the future.
You: 3 Terrorists: 2
Terrorists come round and kill 2 more of your kids in revenge. You kill 1 terrorist and 3 more of his friends, to stop them from killing in the future.
You: 7 Terrorists: 4
Repeat until no more kids/friends left to kill.

Wouldn't it be a mite more sensible to find out what beef the terrorists have with you, and do something about that?

 

[Anonymous]

No, no ,no! Why don't they talk to our leaders and tell them what their beef is? That's why they're there.

But we both know these guys want to cause mayhem and kill. It's their purpose in life. They want to be heroes. They're no more representative of their people than Hitler was of Germans.

Anyway, the idea is to kill the terrorist before he kills my kid.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry Adrian, missed your post there.

Are you a lawyer or something? I did not accuse you of having no experience of terrorism.[/b]

But you did say that my opinion would be different if a few of my family got blown up. Well as I have said before in posts on this subject, I lost 2 college friends in the WTC attacks. I also have 2 brothers who served in Northern Ireland. One as a regular soldier, and one as an RAOC Ammunition Technician (bomb disposal expert to the uninitiated) Both of them ended up having mental breakdowns and continuing mental problems as a result of what they experienced at the hands of terrorists.

And yes, my answer is to kill those who the authorities suspect will commit these acts. We've been to soft for to long which is half the reason they try it on. Fight fire with fire. It's the only way in the end. If they won't see reason then you have to do it.

And you can't go around killing people on suspicion there has to be proof, there has to be evidence. I don't want to live in a police state that says I can be arrested or even killed without trial just because I'm suspected of doing something.
I have no truck with terrorists or fanatics of any religion or political stripe. But it's the kind of arrogance displayed in actions such as this which cause the worldwide hatred of America.
And as for being naive in thinking that the CIA don't know anything, how come the organisation that couldn't uncover or prevent mass hijackings of planes on American soil has suddenly become 100% infallible when it comes to identifying and eliminating terrorists?

 

[Alatotep]

I'm with you Adrian...

You can't fight to defend the rule of democracy / law by breaking that democracy or law. As you pointed out above, the US justifies its actions by taking the moral high ground; if it then acts in an un-democratic / illegal way, it will be perceived as being hypocritical, thus strengthening (in their minds) the 'terrorist' case against it.

Btb I'm suspicious of the catch all use of the word 'terrorist'. It seems that as soon as you label someone a terrorist - no matter who they are - they then become exempt from normal processes of justice or even basic human empathy. As such, any action against them becomes justifiable, and any attempt to understand their motivations becomes treasonous. This, I think, is worrying.

It's also worth noting that this does not make me anti-American. I have the highest regard for some aspects of American culture - from the modernist and beat writers and artists who inspired me as a teenager, to the films and TV programmes that have moved, excited and entertained me over the years, to major historical figures from Jefferson to JFK who have made (admittedly sometimes ambiguous) contributions to global culture. The full list is too long to post here!

However, I do believe that America's foreign policy - or rather, George W. and co's foreign policy - is dangerously simplistic and naive.

I too have felt the effects of IRA bombings - and I know that these bombings were in part funded by American money, channeled through Noraid et al. I find it worrying that a democratic country once sufficiently open to free speech to allow public support for a genuine terrorist organisation operating on a close ally's home ground, now seems to be attempting to stifle the basic democratic right to make reasoned and principled argument against its government's policies.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: I'm with you Adrian...

You can't fight to defend the rule of democracy / law by breaking that democracy or law. As you pointed out above, the US justifies its actions by taking the moral high ground; if it then acts in an un-democratic / illegal way, it will be perceived as being hypocritical, thus strengthening (in their minds) the 'terrorist' case against it.

My point exactly.

This isn't anti-American, it's pointing out a fundamental flaw in their (ie US government) actions which is liable to be exploited by the 'terrorists' and their supporters to the possible detriment of us all.

 

[Jerry_B]

No, no ,no! Why don't they talk to our leaders and tell them what their beef is? That's why they're there.

But we both know these guys want to cause mayhem and kill. It's their purpose in life. They want to be heroes. They're no more representative of their people than Hitler was of Germans.

Anyway, the idea is to kill the terrorist before he kills my kid.

Many of the reasons that such groups arise and what they want is well known by the West, partly due to the fact that they've funded them in the past. Boiling it all down to and eye-for-an-eye stuff is waaaay off being any form of solution. You can take the wind out of anyone's ideological sails by actually trying to adress the problems that give birth to such greivances. Northern Ireland is a good example - dialogue led to a cessation of violence on a wide scale, and the situation is still (despite everything) holding together. Terrorism doesn't start because of sheer bloody-mindedness or some form of mania (in most cases) - it has a political root. The way to neutralise it is to adress the problems that cause it. The US, for example, can carry on killing as many suspects it likes, but it won't solve a thing.

 

[Alatotep]

Indeed...

Have always thought of terrorism as being essentially reactive, not proactive. It's a response to a clearly defined situation. As you say, the most effective way to deal with it is to understand and defuse the situation.

 

[river_styx]

Thankyou to the CIA it's now clear that we need no real evidence to condemn people anymore as long as they appear suspicious we can blow 'em up. Finally I can get some sweet vengence on all those bullies who induced terror into my life.

 

[ruffready]

RE: Forty2

You're on the money! we gotta trust our intel people in the USA (and yours too!!) ..you are a wise person!! thanks for your support!! If they say they we're who they said they we're "Nail "em"!! and to heck with the complaints!! Lets go after the next Target >>!!Let freedom Ring!! Go get 'em !!:yeay:

 

[Anonymous]

Good idea, let's just go kill anyone who looks at us funny, just in case they're dangerous as well

Oh man! Does that mean I need to live underground from now on? I look funny most mornings, and I look at people funny most days.

 

[ruffready]

Ahhh Fallen angel ..

"It is better to be what you is , than what you is not!!" (mr.wizard the lizard)

 

[Anonymous]

Re: RE: Forty2

Let freedom Ring!! Go get 'em !!:yeay:

Yeah let's have the freedom to kill whoever we want and think no more about it. Aftrer all, they're not white and they're not European or American so it's not like they count as human beings with rights or anything is it.

I mean, that shoot to kill and internment without trial idea really worked for us against the IRA. They rolled over and gave up as soon as we started that

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the frivolus post, I know this is a serious subject.

While I don't think that communications with fanatics ever bring about any positive results, we have to try. We have to at least say to these people: you have your beliefs, we have ours, you go your way and we'll go ours. Then the US has to stop trying to shove it's "culture" down the throats of every other country.

THEN, if the terrorists still feel a mission to come and kidnap/bomb/assasinate etc. .... wipe their asses OUT.

I have a problem with anyone who can't d**m well live and let live. Why try to tell me how to live my life? And what right have I to tell you? And that's what this all comes down to, in my eyes. A certainty that I (the terrorist) am SO RIGHT in my ideology that I have to go out and force others to buy in, and kill and frighten those I cannot force.

And that is pathetic.

 

[meanderer1]

Re: RE: Forty2

If they say they we're who they said they we're "Nail "em"!! and to heck with the complaints!!

The most important word in that statement is 'IF' - I'd like to see some proof as I'm pretty sure the CIA/FBI/MI5 etc have all been guilty of one helluva lot of balls up in the past!

 

[Anonymous]

I mean, that shoot to kill and internment without trial idea really worked for us against the IRA. They rolled over and gave up as soon as we started that

If I remember rightly it was an increase in operations by the SAS that helped bring the IRA to the negotiating table. (ref. Peter Taylor's documentaries). I'm not an advocate of violent means at all, but doing nothing isn't an option either.

These people believe they are at war, and in wars people get killed. On both sides. Most people in the UK didn't think they were at war with respect to N. Ireland, but the militant Republicans most certainly did. However because it was unconventional the normal rules didn't apply.

It's a moral grey area to me, I don't think anyone will disagree that these people need to be taken out of commission before they commit an act, but the downside is that in order to do so the moral highground becomes very blurred. It's not easy to seek the public's approval in a referendum before attempting to apprehend a terrorist about to plant a bomb in a shopping mall.
I believe the security forces should behave as honestly and decently as they can, but if one side doesn't play by the rules, why should our security forces have one hand tied behind their backs?

 

[Anonymous]

Right on DD!

 

[phgnome]

I agree with Adrian, too. I think bloodshed just paves way for more bloodshed.

What about your judicial system? Don't you trust it?

It's scary to think that I may be on a plane or boat with someone who is SUSPECTED of being a terrorist and everyone on the plane or boat is at risk to die for the SUSPECTED actions that one individual on board has done.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to round off my stance on this issue, I'd also like to say I'm a strong advocate of cutting off the blood supply to terrorism by dealing with the causes too.
Currently, regarding the Palestinian problem the US (which like it or not, everyone looks to for guidance and influence) is doing precisely jack and shit, and jack is out of town. It was only when the social inequities of NI were begun to be addressed that a solution could be found (even if we're not there yet) - the real bastards could then be rounded up and removed. Note the success of removing the IRA splinter groups in both Eire and in the North.
The idea that the CIA are risking man hours, lives and technology in picking off random Arabs is pure fantasy.

 

[ruffready]

you said it!! I agree with your above post,just as you wrote

why should our security forces have one hand tied behind their backs?

.. DD explained it the best (much better than I) I'll go with it!!: :yeay:

 

[Anonymous]

My two farthings

Well, here is how I view the whole terrorist thing. For what its worth.

Some posters here seem to be missing a fundamental concept. This is a state of war. A war declared openly and quite clearly by the various fanatical muslim groups. Their mission is very very simple: Wipe out all the infidels. Are you a devout and righteous muslim? No? Then you are their target. Groups such as hamas and al queada believe that allah is the one and only god, and that he condones and even encourages KILLING nonbeleivers. Think of the old school baptists on crack. Now give them guns, anthrax, etc. Scary, no? Hence, my learned friends, we are at war and the normal rules for "democracy" and "fair trial" do not apply. This is all covered by international law. When the UK and the US were fighting against the Germans in the trenches of WW2 do you think it would have been more appropriate for the Allies to stop and ensure that ALL the enemy troops got "fair trials"? That is just a bit silly. Just because these vermin terrorists dont have the stones to face our troops in open battle does not in any way mean that it is not a war. They want to convert us or kill us, we either fight back or we start shopping around for turbans.

My second and final point deals with moral relativism. This is basically the notion that no cause or side is either fully right nor fully wrong. Hence: The terrorists "reasons" for killing innocents is just as valid as our reasons for stopping them. This is dangerous thinking, my friends. There is a right and a wrong. And some things are just plain evil. Hitler was evil. The inquisition was evil. I think you get the drift. If a terrorist goes into a mall and blows up 20 children, that is evil. His reasons or motives for doing so are irrelevant. I dont care why he did it, and I will refuse to even listen to his grievances. A person such as that is not a soldier, or a political activist, that person is a murderer. And the more you try and "reason" with and coddle his kind, the more leverage you give them. Then, they realize that this method of attack (blowing up innocent civilians) works. And hey, if blowing up people gets you what you want, why stop? Instead, these people need to be shut down with the utmost force. Their cause should also be destroyed along with them.

Well, thats me two cents on the matter. I'm sure some will agree, others not. I did not write this to inflame or insult anyone. Just joining the conversation. All in all, an interesting discussion.

 

[ruffready]

re: Agent Nova

Once again I'll say it. :yeay: you put it well . the truth!!

 

[Jerry_B]

Agent Nova - that, IMHO, is an extremely simplistic view of the whole situation. Also, war actually has to be formally declared before any state can, under international law, carry out such acts like the one that sparked off this thread. What's the point of fighting a 'war' for 'truth and justice', etc. when your methods flout international law? On the one hand the US wants to fght a moral war against terrorism, SH, etc. but at the same time it ignores such moralities when it suits it's foreign policy aims?

But the main point is that the people killed were suspects! How many more times does this point have to be made?? It's the main sticking point - or are you arguing that it's morally correct to kill people suspected of certain acts? It's all well and good saying terrorists are evil ad infinitum but first you have to prove that they're terrorists in the first place. It's a sad look out for the rest of us if any country in the world just decides to kill foreign nationals merely on suspicion - what happens if another state decides to kill US citizens they suspect of carrying out certain acts against them? Is that okay too?

 

[Anonymous]

It depends what we mean by "suspects". If we're talking about domestic criminals, then yes, the CIA action is unjustified. But we're not, we're in a different situation where we're reliant on human intelligence and where the normal "rules" don't and probably can't apply. The suspected terrorist who was killed was wanted for his role in the bombing of the USS Cole, and I'm guessing that didn't come about by chance. We get into this unwinnable argument about the intelligence services protecting their sources by having to with-hold evidence of guilt, whilst those in opposition want to see the proof because they don't trust the intelligence. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we never heard about this anyway.
This guy had been chased by both US and Yemeni security forces and had resisted arrest by force. How else can you deal with that? Are those the actions of an innocent man?
My point is, there probably is proof but we can't practically expect to see it, and if the reports are correct that their car was loaded with explosives, I don't think they were off somewhere to celebrate bonfire night.
I agree it sucks that we have to do this, but what would be a more successful non-lethal alternative?

 

[Jerry_B]

First of all, this only makes sense if we believe what we're told about this sort of action. Secondly, it sets a precedent whereby it's pretty much okay to carry out these sorts of acts if you can come up with 'intelligence' reports to back it up. Alot of the time this sort act is justified in the eye of those carrying it out - but I would guess that if the Iraqi intelligence service decided to kill 'suspects' who were US citizens, it wouldn't be seen by others as an act wholly within the remit of their foreign and security policies.