Poll Question - Retribution

[Kevin Mackie]

Obviously we're not killing enough of the Al Qada terrorists around the globe. Here's an interesting question..how many more should we kill, and I mean drag out of whatever hole they're held in and execute them on the spot, if hostage Paul Johnson is executed as threatened?

The time to start playing by their rules has long passed.

Kevin

[RACastanet]

I was looking for the box marked 'all of them'.

Rich

[benzocaine]

Brace yourself for the liberals who will tell you that those men should be treated by the Geneva convention.

[Gene DeMambro]

Maybe Nick Berg died and Paul Johnson might die becasue we aren't following the Geneva Convention. And it isn't just liberals who are saying it....

Gene

[2Green]

I too was looking for "all of them."
And as soon as possible please.

NM

[Jesse Taub]

Maybe Nick Berg died and Paul Johnson might die becasue we aren't following the Geneva Convention. And it isn't just liberals who are saying it....

Gene

Good point. It seems to me that if the objective is to end Arab terrorism against America, killing Arab prisoners out of vengeance as Kevin suggests may not be the wisest course of action.

[Kevin Mackie]

Good point. It seems to me that if the objective is to end Arab terrorism against America, killing Arab prisoners out of vengeance as Kevin suggests may not be the wisest course of action.

But it is the only course of action. There's only one concept these killers understand, brute force, and threat of death.

The point is nothing America has or could ever do will sway the terrorists from their inbred hatred of us and their desire to kill us. Nothing. being nice doesn't work. Giving them money and aid doesn't work.

The only thing that will work against the terrorists is play by the rules they've created. We're at war. These terrorists are trying to kill our servicemen. They are armed and out of uniform. Geneva convention rules do not apply. They can be shot on the spot and left with their compatriots whose carcasses were not fortunate to have been captured, housed, and fed three meals a day.

Soon enough, there will be fewer and fewer of them to attack us.

Who do they think they're screwing with?

Kevin

[Dana Sheets]

But it is the only course of action.

Saying that there is only one answer is a good way to limit your options.

What will work is breaking the cycle of indoctrination of youth into a life lived only in violence.

Some propose that the way to break this cycle is by killing everyone attached to it. But the "everyone" is always evolving, always changing. Seems to me that there must be a more efficient way to break a cycle like that.

Some we already do with propoganda, and perhaps one of our downfalls is that when we've given aid and money we haven't given good propoganda with it. Propoganda that talks about the importance of education, individual freedom, hope, possibility.

When a critter feels backed into a corner it will fight. We need to eliminate the perception among the youth that their only choice of survival is to join groups like Al Qaeda.

Read their propoganda...

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Selections from an Al Qaeda training manual

They don't just use force, it isn't the only language they understand. they understand human needs, Maslow's heirarchy, and how to play that against human nature.

[Kevin Mackie]

We need to eliminate the perception among the youth that their only choice of survival is to join groups like Al Qaeda.

The deed has been done. My condolences to the Johnson family.

Here is what we NEED to do.

Catch as many as them as possible, slice them open from stem to stern, pack them with pickled pigs a$$holes and drop their rotten carcasses in the middle of their neighborhoods for the poor youth to see what will happen to those who want to join Al Qada. Now that's a strong perception of what choosing poorly will get them.

[Valkenar]

Here is what we NEED to do.

Catch as many as them as possible, slice them open from stem to stern, pack them with pickled pigs a$$holes and drop their rotten carcasses in the middle of their neighborhoods for the poor youth to see what will happen to those who want to join Al Qada. Now that's a strong perception of what choosing poorly will get them.

This is *exactly* how terrorists think. Someone who actually carries out what you just suggested is a terrorist. Think about that. You're advocating terrorism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

[Kevin Mackie]

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

And it's nowhere near what they think.

My intention is simply to kill them in a horrible way.

I'm advocating winning a war on terror by killing the terrorists.

Sorry, I don't consider it unlawful to kill enemy combatants.

Kevin

[Valkenar]

My intention is simply to kill them in a horrible way.

I'm advocating winning a war on terror by killing the terrorists.

I'll be more clear. Here's what you said before, broken down:

Catch as many as them as possible,

I'm with you so far. This is a great idea, and something that is morally legitimate.

slice them open from stem to stern, pack them with pickled pigs a$$holes

This is obscene, and inhuman, but if that's how you get your jollies... well, actually no, I still don't agree with it, and I think it's morally abhorrent. But it's not terrorism if you're just doing this kind of thing for your own (twisted, imho) enjoyment. But then when you...

drop their rotten carcasses in the middle of their neighborhoods for the poor youth to see what will happen to those who want to join Al Qada. Now that's a strong perception of what choosing poorly will get them.

That is terrorism. There's no such thing as an Al Qaeda neighborhood to drop bodies in. The neighborhoods you're talking about are just like our neighborhoods, filled with innocent people with a variety of different ideas and opinions on the world around them.

Dropping mutilated bodies on these innocents as a psychological attack for the purposes of altering their behavior, is, not only reprehensible, but as much a terrorist act as any other.

And it's nowhere near what they think.

You don't think that "They have done injustice to us, so we will show them through violent and gory means the result of wronging us in this way" is basically what they think?

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sorry, I don't consider it unlawful to kill enemy combatants.

It's not exactly lawful either. And if you're classifying these people as enemy combatants, then they're no longer terrorists either.

But that's not the point. The question of whether it makes a difference that it's the U.S. government who would be committing grotesque acts to break the spirit of an innocent populace instead of a nationless group of fanatics is academic and rather pointless.

I'm not really interested in debating the exact definition of terrorism, especially that dictionary.com link has enough to go around. I still believe that it's fair to call it terrorism but I won't press the point. So if you'd like me to take back my use of the word terrorism to describe what you advocated then I will, to me the semantics are not that important.

What is important is that regardless of how you label it, you're talking about a group of people intimidated a group of innocent people through heinous acts because of what a third group of people have done. That is the center of the issue to me, whether you call it terrorism or not.

[cxt]

Far be it from me to suggest pulling a page out of Uncle Sadaams little book.

But notice that NO-ONE was killing his people, setting roadside bombs, or kidnapping his civilians.

Why, because they KNEW he was capable of being MORE savage than they were--the result??

They left him the heck alone. Even allowed him to invade other Muslum nations without action.

The folks involved seem to have embraced a "peace thu strength" outlook.

The West is often accused of ignorance of and indifference to the specific "cultural context" of the regions in which we are involved.

Seems to me the region is pretty much Ok with the various babarisms and cruelty practiced by our oppontents--seem that they consider thier actions "normal" and "whats expected."

Overwhelming violence seems to the only thing they really understand.

Sad, but seem true.

I say we give it to them.

[kyushoguy]

Why do you think Bin Laden and his men hate the americans so much?

If you work this out maybe you could stop the killing.

i'll give you a clue, go look at the photo's of the innocent Iraqis you tortured!

KG

[Dana Sheets]

Who is the "them" we will kill with our overwhelming violence?

Schoolchildren, teenagers, young mothers, the elderly, and yes - insurgents, soliders, and militia.

Many wonderful people who haven't picked up arms against us will be written off once again as collateral damage. Artists, artisans, laborers, intellectuals, clergy....they just happen to be in the way.