Subject:
|
Re: Vote against/for...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:30:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
861 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> Here's another question: Do you think that neutralizing all regimes that
> harbour terrorists (even if it were possible) would do anything to quell the
> anger and hatred which fuels terrorism?
Herein lies the real problem. You hit it right on the head with that
question, Rosco. I am somewhat in favor of blasting violent people with
violent retaliation, but I do fear that to some extent such activity can
breed future violence. Many of the terrorists bent against the U.S. today
are the by-product of international policy of a generation ago. If today's
policy blows up a regime of terrorists, that is all well and good (IMO).
But the unfortunate truth is that some innocent civilians will get hurt or
killed, and they or their kin will develop a hatred which could eventually
lead them to be future terrorists.
Equally unfortunate that with a background with years of hatred and
fanaticism for their cause, it is nigh impossible to change a terrorist's
view through peaceful means (just look at the last fifty years in Isreal and
Jordan and ask yourself whether peaceful accords ever hold with warriors of
terror). So then, war is not a perfect option. But peace has an equal rate
of failure. What then is the solution to this sort of violence?
-H.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) Well, since I've publically stated I think their reasoning in WWII was nothing short of terrorism anyway (lets not go there again), I'd have to say "neither", especially with dubya at the helm. Here's another question: Do you think that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 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
|
|
|
|
