Subject:
|
Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 05:52:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Amy Hughes writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > I decided I am not going to go through and point out the individual
> > instances in these threads where people have used language that
> > attempts to dehumanize our aggressors
>
> I'll grant only that we share much genetic material. Maybe even moreso than we
> do with, say, mold spores.
I disagree with Richard and agree with you on this. I have said before that
I personally require certain standards of behaviour before I will consider
someone as human (and not merely genetically related to me). These
terrorists, by my standards, are not human. I'm not "attempting to
dehumanise" them, they chose that course themselves. At least in my eyes,
and they've given up any hope of my caring what they think of themselves.
They initiated the use of force in a cowardly and craven manner against
innocents. The race will be better off without their genes.
But I think you go too far in the following:
> > A measured response is called for
>
> What would you consider a measured response?
>
> Perhaps we could invite Bin Laden to a national barbeque and have a huge love-
> in, then, when we've convinced him that we're such nice folks, we can strike a
> deal with him...
>
> 1) We'll help you kill the infidels in Israel and sweep them into the sea.
> 2) We'll build all your people nice homes in the Jerusalem 'burbs.
> 3) We'll all convert to your perverted... errr... inspired version of Islam.
>
> In return, you agree to kill only half of us.
>
> I shoulda been a diplomat.
I REALLY don't think Richard is calling for this. Maybe Jason Railton is,
but not Richard. I'm not sure exactly what level of action he is in favor of
but it surely is much stronger than this and it's not fair to characterise
his stance quite this way.
He and I disagree, I think, about the need to disassemble/dismantle a few
states. I think the LP and I disagree about it, for that matter. The time
has come for the US to make the world safe (again), whatever the cost,
whether the world helps pay or not.
But you do Richard an unitentional disservice when you characterise his
advocated course of action as the above level of appeasement. I think we all
ought to put our cards on the table and be concrete in what exactly we
advocate, so perhaps Richard could be a bit more clear, but surely it isn't
this.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
49 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
|
|
|
|
