Subject:
|
Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 03:41:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
NP. I did come off harshly, so that is understandable.
> > 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.
'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 where simple death would not suffice. Videotaped torture
ending in death is much more appropriate followed by sending the videotape back
to the true orchestrater of the carnage is much more appropriate, but U.S. and
U.N. laws seem to have a problem with this. Extrodinary circumstances call for
extreme measures.
I keep having visions of the folks on the upper floors of tower #1 who watched
as tower #2 was hit and collapsed upon itself. I keep seeing confused people who
know that they are about to die the same way, but haven't a clue why. This is
why I feel any simple death for a terrorist isn't nearly enough. They should
have to relive exactly what they put their victims through before visiting Allah
on their way to hell.
Yes, I'm still a peaceful person at heart. Terrorist activity has a way of
altering one's perception of how things are and how they should be.
> 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.
We finally agree on something!
> ROSCO
-Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
| (...) and _have_actually_ acted so in the past is the same as killing someone just because they prey/act differently? Not in my mind. (...) Yes, I put words in Davids mouth, it was way over the top. I apologise. (...) somehow, would you not think (...) (23 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
