Subject:
|
Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:41:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
866 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Larry writes:
> > Our borders were attacked and in this day and age that may require force
> > projection far far away from the actual edge of our soverignity, unfortunately.
>
> I don't have a problem with a short and sweet black ops kinda thing executed
> with as close to surgical precision as we can get. I would prefer capture
> to killing for a variety reasons (i.e. no martyrs, we stay stainless before
> the world, etc.). On the other hand, I keep hearing on NPR how Powel insists
> that this will be a prolonged venture -- and I don't want that at all. I
> can only hope that we get enough cooperation from others in the world to
> keep it all mercifully short.
It's a nice idea, but since this is a 'War on Terrorism' and terrorist keep
popping up where they aren't wanted, it's time to bear down for an extended game
of 'Whack a Mole'. (tounge in check, but an interesting visual for me)
> When these guys start talking about war I always think it has more to do
> with propping up our sagging economy with war dollars and further beating
> down our civil liberties in the name of national security. I oppose both.
Well, that won't happen. We can't have 'butter and bullets' as Brokaw keeps
saying. The economy will get much worse before it gets better. War cetainly
isn't the best way to go to stimulate it. Look at all the resources that will be
expended to get the U.S. war machine moving. These are what usually keeps our
economy strong, except when diverted to the pursuit of war.
I'm opposed to losing civil liberties as well. I do feel that longer lines at
airports and more security at said locations isn't a loss of liberty. It's
merely an inconvenience that is required in order to fight terrorism. If it
hadn't been so east to hijack the planes, they never would have tried. They
would have found an easier way to complete their diabolic act.
> Basically, I see this whole thing as being something not unlike trying to
> capture a mass murderer. Let's catch them and bring them to justice. We
> have a great opportunity to show the world that there is another solution
> than just going after anyone and everyone near or around the guilty with
> bombs. Let's play at cops chasing after murders -- not at cop, judge, jury
> , and executioner all in one and all at once. Moreover, I am not sure that
> I am convinced that there is some huge mass of supporters behind these nuts
> -- just as in this country there is not actually huge support for human sack
> of filth like Jerry Falwell. We must be careful to hurt as few as possible,
> none if we are lucky, but let's capture those responsible.
I'd love nothing more than to see the sadists in charge of the WTC destruction
walk into our custody and say 'there is no need to shed more innocent blood over
this', but let's get real. This will be as easy as catching the wind and holding
onto it for dear life.
> > Could we grant a Letter of Marque to some giant corporation (say, ExxonMobil)
> > and let THEM take him out in exchange for getting to keep all the oil?
>
> Why didn't you just say, "Kick their ass, and take their gas!" as I have
> heard it is said these days?
>
> =)
>
> But seriously, I have no problem with bringing the guilty (whomever they may
> be) to trial just like at Nuremberg. Why is this unreasonable or somehow
> not enough? Vengeance should have no play in our actions. No retribution
> is possible -- I mean, it's not like we can kill those responsible 5000+
> times. [For you Xtians -- "Let god be true though all men are sinners", or
> in other words: leave the guilty for god to judge, it is not your job and it
> is beyond your abilities.] Putting these nuts in the slammer should be
> enough for us, because the ultimate goal should simply be to contain the
> problem and forestall further bledshed. If we kill them, we are going to
> give a lot of people more ammo for hatred.
I'll just mention 'Argentina' and leave it at that. 60 years is far too long to
wait for retribution for these despicable acts.
> Anyway, I am hardly advocating we coddle these criminals. I am suggesting,
> yet again, that we simply not act from our passions because no one could
> ever then pay the penalty we would exact of them.
Wow! We actually agree here. Some penalty MUST be paid, but I'll agree that no
penalty will return the 5000+ lost to us. If that could be done, I'd say let the
offenders off with a slap on the wrist. However, that only happens on '7 Days'.
> If we can be strong, merciful, and truly righteous -- it will be a story
> that rings down through the ages. We will have stayed our hands when we
> could have crushed our attackers into bone-dust. We can transform a mound
> of ashes into a beautiful dream of peace and cooperation amongst the people
> of the world. We will have valued life over vengeance and death.
Sounds like what we already did when we missed Saddam withour bombs while he was
hiding amidst his people. We're still smarting from that one, and now he has the
gall to tell us to use 'common sense' and let this one go. I doubt he'd have
that reaction if his country lost 5000 for no logical reason whatsoever.
> ...Or did y'all think it merely ended with the conception of the democratic
> republic and a system of individual rights? Let's contribute we have to
> share to the betterment of the future. Let's act upon an alternative to war.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
I wish that were possible, but those responsible just won't learn from merciful
acts. You idea would have merit if we weren't talking about religious zealots
who fallow a faulty code of honor. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. The key is
to stop them from achieving their goal. If you don't believe me, I'll just post
a couple of names here to illustrate my point: David Koresh and Tim McVeigh.
-Dave
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
