war

[low_delta]

Someone said:

We currently have al-Quaida's leaders in a state of disarray, and we dare not allow that to change. Now that we have started this campaign, we cannot let up until our mission is complete. To do so now would open us up to equal or worse atrocities than the one that plunged us into this war to begin with.

Could somebody remind me how war (and destroying al-Quaida) is supposed to help prevent future terrorism?

Comments

[sherahi.livejournal.com]

The rhetoric is that because AQ wouldn't give up OBL (who the gov feels there is enough evidence to convict of 9-11 crimes,) that they are now harboring and encouraging the terrorists and that they would continue terrorist work against us even if we got OBL because all of OBL supporters and second in command are suppose to be AQ now.

..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

Here's a good article.

[zitronenhai.livejournal.com]

I think it might be meant to restore our false sense of security.

[vlinker.livejournal.com]

(This is a copy of an e-mail that has been circulating. Although i don't condone the actions that are recommended, there is an underlying theme which i do believe.)


""What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by stupid naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed:

1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation."

2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

6) When he gets back up to up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be
awful and he should not cause more violence."

7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.

8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to hit back. Because if we don't, this is what the world will look
like if the Taliban wins --""

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I disagree. It is a clever way to put it, but since you would punch him in the face either way, your point is moot.

Re: ..

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Yes. Thank you.

Re:

[vlinker.livejournal.com]

interesting.......you seem to have missed the metaphor of this little piece.....

lets just say the first punch is actually ramming some civilian aircraft into a couple large buildings.......

or perhaps blowing up a few embassys.....

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't miss the metaphor at all.

If they (the terrorists) punch us in the face, and we punch them back, they *will* punch us again.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that using force will cause them to continue - and probably intensify - their terrorist efforts. Even if we capture bin-Laden and destroy al-Qaida, other groups will spring up. So that cute little example of punching a stupid, naive, dumb rich idiot, really holds no water.

Re:

[vlinker.livejournal.com]

sooooooooooo, we get punched and we say we're sorry for the blood from our face messing up their fist, we get punched again, and again and again.......so what do we do?......because you know, that they will continue to punch......time to wear a face cage?.....perhaps hide in a cave?.....maybe send those guys doing the punching some food and medical supplies that we have worked to pay for so that they can keep their energy up to continue punching........

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That's all you see, huh? Two answers? Punch or do nothing?

The face cage makes a good start. We're already doing that. Increased vigilance against terrorism.

What else? There are many different things we can do to abate terrorism. Stop messing with the Middle East, for one thing. Why do we keep doing the things that piss them off? There are all kinds of things we can do. I know they're not great answers, but the obvious reply - bomb the shit out of them - is just as obviously flawed. Why should we do that? I've heard people say "because we *have* to do something!" Well, then let's try something. But why do we have to be in such a rush to get it done right fucking now? "It's been two weeks since the attack, and we still haven't done anything!" That's bullshit but nobody wants to get in it for the long haul. They're too worried about killing the bastard. Think long-term. We've stepped up our defenses. That should buy us some time to think of some positive solutions. The reason a miltary solution looks like the best one, is because we haven't taken the time to think of a better one.

I just read in the paper today, that we've been negotiating for years to get bin Laden handed to us (this administration and the previous). They said they'd hand him over to a neutral country, but we said "no, it's got be us." Right there. What were we thinking? Let this guy go, just so we could look tough? We refused to give them the option of saving face, *and* turning over the bad guy, just so... why? There was a real solution, and we were too shortsighted to take it.

In short, I'm sure there are some other options out there that would leave us less vulnerable to attack, and even if there aren't, the better ones can't be worse than a military assault.

Re:

[vlinker.livejournal.com]

i will wear my face cage when kayaking or canoeing in shallow class III + water......but i don't think that i, or anyone else for that matter, should have to worry about being a target as they travel thought the world.......

i haven't read today's paper.......so if that article is in the daily worker......i will check it out......and see who "they" are.....

not all problems can be solved by "negotiation"