> My reply to your post...
> >Bomb their entire countries dust.
> ...is a companion to my reply to Miriam's, so read both
> before you reply to
> me (if you can be bothered replying at all).
> I absolutely understand your reaction. I find myself having similar
> fantasies... and I'm not even American. I feel that it was an
> attack on all
> of us. I can't convey how deeply sickened I was at those
> images of people in
> the Middle East celebrating (no matter how much I try to
> understand it),
> juxtaposed against all the other terrible images that I have
> so seen over
> and over for the past 24 hours - not least of it those people
> jumping to their deaths, caught in stop-motion as they plunge
> headfirst down
> the sides of the towers.
> We can't really bomb those entire countries to dust, my
> friend, but just
> this once I won't argue with you.
> Re another post of yours: yes, build the thing even higher.
This is a long one, so if your pressed for time, I suggest hitting delete
right now. Sorry, but this got me cranked up, and if this doent crank you
up, then you dont have a pulse.
Those countries responsible for this should be held fully accountable.
There is no way you can make the claim that a group of people are guilty,
while they are being hidden, funded, and aided by some system of government,
and then say the government isnít just as responsible. Those governments,
being responsible for making this possible are also morally responsible for
paying for damages (There is no way to put a price on the lives lost, but at
the very least, they should pay the millions or billions due in property
damage due the owners of the property). The only big asset that Iím aware
that the Middle East has in abundance is oil, so be it, they can pay in
whatever means they have. Obviously, this doesnít fix the situation, but it
can be used to compensate those involved. What about the mothers that were
counting on the income of the fathers killed? What do they do now? Also they
are responsible for bringing these terrorists to justice; failure to do so
in a reasonable amount of time indicates their support, aid, and implicit
consent. By reasonable, I mean as quickly as they can lay their hands on
them. Failure to meet all of these minimal demands would be insufficient and
would simply be their attempt to ďcompromiseĒ on basic principles of
fairness. Also, I donít think itís unreasonable to demand these simple
things. I point our rebuilding of most countries that we have had wars with
(even though most in fact deserved it), as historical precedence that this
is more then fair.
A large percentage of the adults in those countries support their system of
government. They too are morally responsible if they support a system that
deals out wholesale slaughter to innocent civilians. They have means
available to them to both escape and help support the effort to change their
system. Iíve never heard of border patrols keeping people from moving as
they wish, although even if there was such a system, I cant imagine them
having the resources to fully protect their borders when even we cant pull
that off. Finally, those systems support the oppression of their own
peoples, specifically the women and non-Muslims have no moral appeal on why
they should even exist while subjecting such atrocities on their own people.
As for the children they are not responsible, but still dangerous.
Unfortunately, we learned this lesson many times before. Weíve all heard
about the Vietnamese children, trained to kill or those that had bombs
strapped on them that walked into G.I. camps. We saw on television these
children being trained to fight the Great Russian enemy from the north with
their AK-47s, grenade launchers, and stinger missiles (amazing supplied from
the US!). Also note, these children are NOT going to grow up to be great
lovers of peace in an atmosphere that they presently inhabit. They will be
the very ones over here dropping nerve gas, killing your children. Remember
then, that now we had a chance to stop them, but you stepped in and
prevented it. Who will we blame then?
This is a war of ideas, capitalism and reason vs. religion and
irrationalism. One side or the other will take the aggressive stance and try
to suppress the other. If someone was breaking in your house, and attacking
your children, you wouldnít have any problem killing to defend it. You
wouldnít be worried about missing the shot, sending a stray bullet, all you
would care about is to prevent that monster from raping your children, all
you will care about is making it stop. No one likes using violence, but
sometimes, there IS a call for it. This is one of those times. Failure to
act against evil when given the chance does you, your children, or your
country no service. No body in any war actually enjoyed it, but they had the
courage to fight when the time calls. In Vietnam, there were questions about
the morality of the war; there is no such questions here.
So, what to do? Try and protect the country while targeting individuals?
Those countries will keep cranking out the terrorists. Give up and do
nothing but cower in fear? Oddly enough, I suspect enough moral cowardice
and insecurity that this might be an option to some. The only surefire
rational method of ensuring they donít have the capability to support
terrorists is to remove the system in power. That isnít easy. Matter of fact
itís bloody as hell, but this is the only guarantee youíll get in protecting
liberty. Its us or them. For those of you who think the cost is too high, I
suggest you read up on history and try to grasp the full magnitude of the
abominable nature of serfdom and its effect on the human spiritÖ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:30 MDT