posted on October 11, 2001 09:18:29 AM new
What part of "Kill all Americans" do people not understand? This precept is not idle blather in a chat room where all sorts of verbal overkill is routine. This is Job #1 to them. They are drop dead serious about it.
There are no comparable philosophical discussions taking place in the caves of Afghanistan or the perfumed dens of Baghdad. If there was a button labeled "Press Here to Kill All Infidels" there would be a bloody fight over who would have the honor of pressing it.
To them, our genocide would be a blessing from Allah. To me, their extermination would not be genocide as much as germicide.
posted on October 11, 2001 09:33:06 AM new
So which countries in particular are you suggesting that we annihilate? What about the Arabs here - are you going to kill my Egyptian restrauteur? How about the Afghani who sets up at the local flea market with his wife and kids - kill them too? How many and whom do we murder?
Yes, but who is saying "Kill all Americans"? Who is this "they" and "them" you keep referring to? I agree that "they" need to be stopped, and that if killing "them" is the only solution we should do it. I just can't accept that "they" are every Arab and Moslem in the world, or even every person in the entire Middle East if you want to narrow the scope of your proposed genocide a bit.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 10:37:32 AM new
What REAMOND said!
Seriously, if that country is where the terrorists happen to be-and that country makes it clear that they will do nothing to get rid of the terrorist-then that is the country we bomb.
Nobody said war was nice-just sometimes necessary.
posted on October 11, 2001 10:54:45 AM new
Godzilla: Taken from Bin-Laden's fatwa in 1998.
Yes, the majority of Arabs or Muslims are fine people. The guy I buy cigarettes from is polite, well-dressed in a crisp white shirt and tie, and cheerfully greets each customer at the door. Mohammed looked very pained and scared in the days after the attack. He's shy because of his limitations in English but I was able to convey to him that I considered him a friend.
The only estimate I've heard is that 10-15% of Islam adheres to the fanatical faction. A small percentage of that would actually put words into action.
My point was that all the Western squeamishness about the concepts of genocide and ethnic cleansing are not shared by the terrorists. They take a look at my neck and see a dotted line and the inscription "Cut Along Here." It appears that they practice the dreaded "profiling" on a continuous basis.
As for the use of "they." It's unfortunate that there is no shorthand word or phrase that denotes only the evil 5% of any race, religion, sex, etc. that doesn't sound like it came from a sociology text. Most of us get tripped up by the "they" or "all" trap (even "some" or "a few" is considered a slur to overreacting parties) unintentionally. Usually, the debate is then short circuited into the "racist" or "homophobe" rut unless one uses the wuzzy Seinfield "not that there's anything wrong with that" gambit.
Personally, I don't like every person I encounter and make no bones at saying so if provoked. But my dislike would not be based on whatever the race or religion one is a member of but rather whether that person is a jerk or a nice human being.
posted on October 11, 2001 11:05:40 AM newcooltom: My point was that all the Western squeamishness about the concepts of genocide and ethnic cleansing are not shared by the terrorists.
I don't have a problem with that. But it's a huge step to go from "terrorists would gladly kill all Americans" to "we should therefore feel justified in killing all Arabs, even though only a small portion of them are terrorists".
Of COURSE the terrorists don't have the moral sensibilites that we have. That's why their TERRORISTS for pete's sake!
I don't think anybody's saying we SHOULDN'T go after the terrorists and the regimes that support them. But that's a far cry from "dial in the coordinates on the nukes and let them fly" or "completely destroy their civilization".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 11:26:29 AM new
Sorry, sometimes one gets on a rant and neglects to answer the question. The answer to whom "they" referred to was of course the terrorist and their wannabe replacements. However the "dial in the coordinates on the nukes and let them fly" comment was based on the stories relayed about the lack of work ethic in the Arab world. If we do indeed eradicate the terrorists we would be still left with a basket case social and economic system that would have no hope of ever acheiving democracy or a viable standard of living.
posted on October 11, 2001 11:38:38 AM newcooltom: I'm not sure I'm getting you. It seems like you are saying that, since there's no way the region would ever be able to achieve democracy or a viable standard of living, we should therefore just launch a nuclear strike and destroy the entire region. And if that *IS* what you're saying, it still seems like you are talking about genocide.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 11:44:57 AM new
Well obviously from the statements on TV the Taliban are happy to see continued activity like the WTC attack and have refused to hand over Bin Laden's organization sayiong they don't consider them terrorists. Instead they brag of giving him back his communication gear which implies they want him to use it.
Now if the people in Afganistan are still more afraid of the Taliban than the US they are going to have some events over the next couple weeks that may change their mind.
If the population there supports them - and every indication is that they do or are not effective in removing them there will be consequences. That is a shame and I hate to see those consequences, but I don't see any other possibility happening.
There is no physical way to treat it as a hostage situation and say these Taliban are holding 4 million Afgans hostage. Do you expect the troops to go in - capture them all and run lie detector tests on them all to see who is who? Maybe have 2 million trials to see who are the Taliban and who are the innocent ones? Kinda hard isn't it?
The same thing seems to be happening with Iraq - and if the military has to act against them all I can predict is that the thinner they are spread the rougher they will have to act and the less discrimination they will be able to make between military and civilian targets. Not saying that makes me happy just that is ugly reality.
[ edited by gravid on Oct 11, 2001 11:51 AM ]
posted on October 11, 2001 02:17:37 PM new
The they applies to the collective guilt shared by Islamic population for actively and passively supporting terrorists.
We do not have the means to sort through the Islamic world to decide who is who.
Do any of you wish to volunteer to go to these countries and sort out the bad guys ? We tried it in Lebanon and Somalia and ended up with hundreds of dead servicemen ambushed and car bombed.
If they Celebrate the WTC destruction in the streets and chant death to America - bomb them.
If they Preach terrorism and death to America in a Mosque- bomb them.
If they Allow terrorists to operate with impunity in their country- bomb them.
If they Build a nuclear reactor- bomb them.
If they Try to develope Bio or Chemical weapons - bomb them.
The alternative is to allow the threat to grow to a point that they will destroy us.
posted on October 11, 2001 02:25:52 PM new
A question is whether or not Americans love themselves enough to defend themselves against assault. Another is are Americans so determined to protect the "innocent" in Afghanistan to the point where we make a mistake and let another killer slip through.
posted on October 12, 2001 05:13:31 AM new
This is not just an "Afghanistan" problem. The web of support for these killers winds through Saudi Arabia, OAE, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Indonesia, the PLO, Hamas, al jihad,al Qeida etc..
These attacks and networks will be found to have connections throughout Islam.
It will take more attacks before the West realizes what "draining the swamps" actually means.
posted on October 12, 2001 06:40:15 AM new
This is not a criminal or civil matter. It is war. Perhaps a trial was needed before we attacked Afghanistan ? I suppose you would consider our servicemen and woman attacking Afghanistan are no better than the terrorists ?
Did the people at the WTC, or Pentagon, or the plane in PA get a trial ? Were they guilty of anything to deserve what they got ?
posted on October 12, 2001 07:54:04 AM new
Genocide is a hot button word which the peacenick PC crowd like to use to defame our military.
What has been advocated here is no different than what US serviceman did in WWII.
Self defence is not genocide.
These same people that advocate our serviceman go in and sort out the "guilty" seem to care less that these serviceman and woman become targets for car bombs and ambushes, get killed, maimed, and have their lifeless bodies dragged through the streets by the innocent woman and children.
We have lost over 300 servicemen on "find the guilty" missions.
The servicemen and woman are not fodder to be killed for the misguided moral pangs of the Politically Correct crowd. They have wives, husbands, sons, daughters, parents, friends, and neighbors.
It must really clear one's conscience advocating getting our servicemen and woman killed to protect these "innocents".
[ edited by REAMOND on Oct 12, 2001 07:56 AM ]
posted on October 12, 2001 08:07:39 AM newtigressoflove: They're not only advocating, but persuing, genocide against Americans. Better them than us.
Again, who is "they"? I agree that the people who advocate and pursue genocide of the American people should be stopped. But I disagree that we should therefore kill ALL Arabs and/or Moslems in order to do so, since it's only a small percentage of Arabs and Moslems who are doing that.
REAMOND: Genocide is a hot button word which the peacenick PC crowd like to use to defame our military.
No, Genocide is a word which I used in this thread to defame what certain posters have said, i.e., that we should use nuclear weapons to wipe out entire countries and destroy entire civilizations.
I'm not a peacenik. In fact, I happen to support our attack on Afghanistan once it became clear that the Taliban was behind the attacks on the WTC [or at least supporting those who were behind it]. But you don't have to be a "peacenik" to oppose the slaughtering of millions or billions of lives in an attempt to kill the small percentage of those people who have, or might, or could possibly someday, be responsible for terrorist actions.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 12, 2001 08:16:46 AM new
If one takes the time to weed out the terrorists, more Americans will be killed.
They made their beds by not policing their countries, now they can lie in them. I have zero sympathy for terrioristic countries. This wasn't just terroism, this was the Taliban declaring war on America. We can either become offensive or surrender.
posted on October 12, 2001 08:21:32 AM newREAMOND: That is exactly what our servicemen did in WWII
Oh, really? That would probably come as a shock to the hundreds of millions of Japanese alive today, wouldn't you think? I wasn't aware that we wiped out the entire country of Japan or destroyed their entire civilization.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 12, 2001 08:22:59 AM new
tiggressoflove - They're not only advocating, but persuing, genocide against Americans. Better them than us. Your short posts pretty much sums it up for me. I read and agree with the posts of Reamond and (especially his list) and those of CoolTom too. How much damage will the US have to experience before some people understand we must try to stop this terrorism from growing even more than it has.
Snowyegret - I truly would like to understand your thought process. Your posts are usually so short, I've not been able to get a feel for your opinions on these terrorists acts. Are you one who think we should completely withdraw from the middle east and Israel? Or are you in favor only of ground troops trying to find these individual terrorists? Are you against war, period? Is your biggest concern not hurting innocent people? Do you believe the terrorists when they say they will not stop these attacks against America until we are all killed? I just don't understand exactly where you stand on all this.
posted on October 12, 2001 08:25:29 AM new
Destroying Japanese and German civilization is exactly what we did.
The millions of Japanese and Germans, along with their current civilization is the product of destroying their countries, economies, and cultures, and rebuilding them.
posted on October 12, 2001 08:30:51 AM new
It is my understanding that they don't like Hebrews/Jews either. A lot of my ancestors were wiped out during Hitler's reign.
posted on October 12, 2001 08:41:48 AM new
Barry - Question please. Again, who is "they"? I agree that the people who advocate and pursue genocide of the American people should be stopped. But I disagree that we should therefore kill ALL Arabs and/or Moslems in order to do so, since it's only a small percentage of Arabs and Moslems who are doing that.
When Japan is used as an example or comparison, why don't you think we could use the same 'thought process' with these terrorists or the nations that protect/aid/support etc them? When we bombed Japan, twice, they got the message and there was no need to totally distroy all their people or their country....the genocide so many say they don't want. We didn't need to 'wipe them off the face of the earth' to get our point across. But we did need to make a big impression that we wouldn't stand for our country being attacked.
If we ask other nations, who support these terrorist groups to turn them over, and they don't....why wouldn't this same 'think' and action work in the middle east countries?
Gee, maybe we're just using different words to descibe the same thing [or the same words to describe different things]? Are you talking about simply "hitting them hard", but not reducing entire countries to glowing craters or killing every last Arab and/or Moslem just to be on the safe side? If so, then I would agree that you're not talking about genocide here.
Yes, we inflicted some heavy damage on Japan and Germany, but in neither case did we actually destroy the entire country, nor did we kill a significant fraction of their populace. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the entire country, and we didn't inflict anything CLOSE to that amount of damage to Germany. For that matter, we didn't actually wipe out either of their civilizations, although we certainly helped make some significant modifications to it, I admit.
As you pointed out in a previous post, unlike WWII, "this is not about a country, it is about a religion and culture steeped in hatred and cold blooded murder of innocent Americans". You then seem to conclude that we should therefore kill ALL Arabs and/or Moslems. Another possible conclusion, though, is that other tactics instead of dropping nukes will be required, not that we simply need to drop more nukes this time.
Yes, we need to stop the Taliban. No question. And then we need to go after other terrorist regimes. And then, like we did with Japan, we need to work hard to make sure that whatever regimes take their place are not composed of fanatical fundamentalists instead of just dropping bombs and then washing our hands of the matter the way we have done too often in the last 20 years. But simply nuking the entire region is not the answer. Aside from the fact that it is completely monsterous, and aside from the world-wide environmental repercussions that would result from that amount of nulcear fallout, I don't think any of us would want to live in the world that we would be creating as a result.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
