Subject:
|
Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:31:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> Ross Crawford wrote:
> > > I don't fully agree. No more terrorists=no more terrorist acts.
> >
> > This sounds pretty similar to "No jews=supreme Aryan state" to me.
>
> it does? saying that we need to kill someone who _says_ they want to kill us,
and _have_actually_ acted so in the past is the same as killing someone just
because they prey/act differently? Not in my mind.
>
> > > Somehow, these
> > > fanatics need to understand 'Don't mess with us, or we'll take you down
> > > permanently'.
> >
> > Who are you threatening to "take down"? Some random muslim perhaps? Or maybe
> > the whole lot? Do you include my muslim friends here in Australia, or that
> > "piece of s**t" Palesinian guy selling papers on the streets of NYC?
>
> uh, where did he even mention the word muslim there?
Yes, I put words in Davids mouth, it was way over the top. I apologise.
> Let me as you this, if the hijackers of the planes managed to survive
somehow, would you not think they need to be punished, maybe even killed? I
see no difference between the ones who did the act and the ones who planned it.
Where did I say people shouldn't be punished? David said "we'll take you down
permanently", I take that to mean killing. If a hijacker had survived, he
should be tried for murder, and if convicted, serve the sentence according to
American law. If that means the death sentence, so be it.
The only difference I see between the organisers & the hijackers is that the
organisers have no qualms delegating murder. If the organisers are identified,
and can be extradited they should suffer the same consequences as a surviving
hijacker.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
| (...) NP. I did come off harshly, so that is understandable. (...) 'we'll take you down permanently' means that we'll go to any lengths to protect our freedoms, even killing terrorists if it comes down to it. Personally, I feel that this is a case (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
| (...) it does? saying that we need to kill someone who _says_ they want to kill us, and _have_actually_ acted so in the past is the same as killing someone just because they prey/act differently? Not in my mind. (...) uh, where did he even mention (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
