Subject:
|
Re: Terrorist Attacks on America
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Sep 2001 03:10:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3514 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> > Ross Crawford wrote:
> > > And maybe there'll be a few million more innocent people killed before • everyone
> > > suddenly realises it hasn't made any difference. Is terrorism OK when
> > > sanctioned by GWB? You really think it will stop others retaliating?
> >
> > I don't coun't an attack on terrorists as terrorism.
>
> Why not?
>
> > can you really compare an attack on a terrorist training camp to an attack
> on civilians?
>
> Yes, I can. They're all people, even if they may be somewhat mis-guided.
When people fight wars they kill people. It's very sad, especially when you
consider that most of these people don't consider themselves 'evil' but are
convinced that they are right (it's possible that they were 'mis-guided' by
their leaders).
When someone tries to kill me I don't care if he's misguided or not. It's just
a question of me or him. If I could destroy a camp of misguided 'terrorist
training camp' and by that save the tens of thousands killed in NY I would do
that without hesitation.
I wouldn't be glad to do that but it's still the right thing to do.
> Trouble is, Bush seems to be saying he wants to retaliate against anyone who
> harbours terrorists. And how do they decide who are the terrorists and who's
> helping them? Answer: They make an informed guess. They don't mind if they • make
> a few mistakes, thats just "collateral damage". But to the people targetted,
> it's murdering innocent people, just like the WTC. And if the US can • retaliate,
> why shouldn't they?
When you're fighting a war you can't afford to bring everyone to trial.
It's simply not possible. The result will be the death of tens of thousands
of people.
You have to fight to the best you can, you must not hurt innocent people just
in spite, but you must accept that when you are fighting a hard battle
mistakes can happen. You must try to minimize them but you can't shy away from
the whole thing just because they might happen. You simply can not afford to
do nothing. The result of doing nothing would be much worse.
- David
> > You are right though, retaliating won't stop terrorism, it would just make
> it harder.
>
> How do you figure that????
>
> > That's a good thing though. But increased security can help prevent such
> things from happening, and that's something even the pacificists can agree • on.
>
> Now you've changed the discussion to "increased security"? Where did that • come
> from? I didn't hear anything about that in Bush's speeches.
>
> ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Terrorist Attacks on America
|
| (...) everyone (...) Why not? (...) on civilians? Yes, I can. They're all people, even if they may be somewhat mis-guided. Trouble is, Bush seems to be saying he wants to retaliate against anyone who harbours terrorists. And how do they decide who (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
