Zed 2.0

have directly @#$%ed them over at some point. There are a few examples where it comes down to basic theological differences, but these alone cannot justify the extermination of a people.

AggregatVier

Dictators always set up someone else as the enemy to "unite" the people. Animal Farm is a short read (it's actually about Stalinism). You'll get a lot of insight from it.

For advanced reading, try Machiavelli's The Prince.

Zed 2.0

I've actually read Animal Farm twice, as well as reading The Prince.

BigDog

And obviously didn't understand either text...

Zed 2.0

An event of this magnitude requires us to totally reasses our foreign policies. Or maybe you'd just rather go into every village that has any anti-american sentiment, kill their men, rape their women and force their children into slavery. "Oh, they wouldn't hate us any more than they already have been programmed to hate us." *******.

AggregatVier

...sounds like it. You're so biased in this position you're neither considering history or reading the daily newspaper. I would have expected you to learn the seminal lesson of Orwell's writings (at least 1984 and AF): fight totalatarian terror when it first starts or end up defeated (AF's animals) or broken (1984's Winston). That you completely miss the indoctrination parallels between the dogs in AF or Room 101 in 1984 and the manipulation of the Palestinians means you never read either book or are so doctrinaire you're in denial.

As to current American policy how can you be so blind to the INTERNATIONAL consensus that's building on this issue. Or the unaminity of opinion on the Hill? Then you set up a straw man argument of either change everything or slaughter civilians. How weak. Give it up. Your cherished communism died. Your leftist socialism died. Weak.

Zed 2.0

that enough innocent blood has been spilt for a long, long time. What will we achieve by levelling Afghanistan, 'turning it into a parking lot,' as so many members of this board have suggested? Sure, we will probably kill the 100 or so responsible for this heinous act, but we'll also kill MILLIONS of people that are no more guilty of anything than the men and women that gave their lives in the WTC. Remember, a bomb cannot discriminate between a six year old child and a fanatical terrorist. If anything, the Gulf War proved that our tactical weapons are not accurate enough to carry out an extended series of precision strikes.

I fail to see how refusing to think that mass murder is a good idea corrilates socialism or communism. Communist Russia committed hideous acts of genocide, 'Communist' Cambodia carried out acts too horrible to even speak of. Furthermore, these are not the acts of totalitarian fascists. These are the acts of cowardly terrorists that are unable to fight our military might in any other way than terrorizing our populace.

You insist that terrorists and terrorist nations behave the way they do because they have been brainwashed through their fanatical doctrines claiming the US is evil. Even if this is so, why pick the US? Why not Switzerland? Why not France? Because the US has had active, and negative involvement in the middle east and eastern europe. We use their oil, give money to their enemies, support popular insurrections, and try to impress conflicting religions on their people.

Have I in any way justified this act of horrible terror that has been committed? I hope not. Nothing can justify the bloody murder of so many innocent people. Our vengence must be swift and merciless. It must also, however be vengence- vengence carried out on a person that has done nothing to you is no vengence at all. We must surgically strike to rid the world of any terrorist organizations that would ever seek to attempt something like this. Poisonings, sniping, car bombs, whatever it takes- have I mentioned I think the US should change it's position on political assasinations? What we must no do however, is carpet bomb a country for something a splinter faction committed. How would you like it if you were killed because somebody in the same apartment building as you had killed somebody?

AggregatVier

Let's go paragraph by paragraph:

1) True. Then life gets complicated by the terrorists deliberately putting their facilities close to sensitive civilian targets (hospitals, schools, day care, etc.). More so they appear as a normal part of life to the surrounding community. Unfortunately, you have to change the mindset of a society to really either defeat it or change its structure. Our leniency and current reluctance (xref Dresden and Tokyo firebombings) to kill "innocents" is purposely manipulated and taken advantage of. This requires ground troops and the gravest, current American military sin - casualties. A bomb can't delineate between the terrorist next door to a school. But a sniper can.

2) Not clear on your point. However, in their native lands these people are totalitarian facists. Just scan MSNBC.COM to see how the Taliban treat their own. Find out what happens to peaceful and tolerant Muslims that don't toe the line.

3) You need a big, common enemy to keep the people in line. Israel's not big enough. Oceania needs a really big enemy. Oops, that's the 1984 reference. Hitler used the Jews. Stalin used Trotsky (and the US). etc. etc. The USA with its economic prosperity and democracy is a complete threat to regimes trying to maintain control. It has to be represented as a place of ultimate evil, otherwise your people try to go there for a better standard of living. Polarized vilification reaches down to the necessary emotional level to control a simple population. Heck, they don't even have to be simple. Look how the masters, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, used propaganda to mesmerized the masses. If the USA is the biggest, best, and richest, if your people would otherwise want to got there, if your people might find that a better way of life, your damn right it better be the number one target of vilification regardless of actual inflicted harm. OTOH, I've got to admit the USA has at times made this polarization easier because of nearly shameless protection of American business and political interests. Still, unlike the rapacious extremes of other (imperialist) regimes, we give other countries generous aid packages and other benefits, and have even been known to surrender conquered territory (as long as in wasn't on our continent).

4) Good. You are rational after all. However, if you just snipe the leaders without offering a counterbalance to that society's prevailing political or social philosophy (i.e., alternatives), you've just created more terrorists. Look, people change for just two things - a religous experience or pain. They've already got their own religion and we (I hope) have no intention of running in there and trying to change it (visions of failed crusades). The pain factor can only come from ground troops to enforce a new societal vision while offering more attractive alternatives. Yes, that does sound like your replacing local Taliban with American Peace Corps reps but it's much like what we did in Japan and Germany after WWII. Yes, Vietnamisation failed, but mainly because we lacked resolve and left. If we want Terrorism to end we have to replace it with something better. That will require time, money, commitment, and an acceptance of casualites and risk.

The easy solution is to kill them all. No one left to argue with. However, in our complex, interconnected world (globalization) that won't work. It's not an option. So what the President and other world leaders are doing is building consensus, moving deliberately, and making a case for specific action. Reprisals are what the ***** got tricked into by the Russians. Turned the Ukranians from friends into enemies. In the end it will be a very difficult thing to balance.

markbradford

Cool!

Gordan T.

How's that different from what every US president/government has done?