PDA

View Full Version : Our Gutless Country....


12-24-2001, 11:20 AM
....or is it our country of archaic law? Either way, it is an outrage that a terrorist gets on a plane with explosives, tries to ignite it, gets caught, and will only face 20 years? How do you think Red China, Russia, Iran, or any Arab nation would handle such an incident? No question this aashole would get executed if the plane landed in their countries. Now, we'll release him in 20 yrs or less, and have to deal with the same terrorist, only he'll be 45-50 years old. Of course, this is assuming we are still in existence. Gutless, just gutless. This is a new age and we should deal with these near-atrocities the same as if they had actually occurred.


As a public service, and as a gesture of peace and love during this holiday season, the good Doctor Wogga wants to be on record as saying he doesn't believe the rumor that this terrorist from Sri Lanka was one of Cyrus's love mates.

12-24-2001, 12:57 PM
I'm not sure I want to use Red China, Russia or Iran as examples for the type of country I want to live in. I'm conservative to the core, but think that civil liberty is the basis for our continued freedom. Merry Xmas

12-24-2001, 01:08 PM
You aren't devious enough.


Give him five years.

Place him in Leavenworth.

Put him out in the general population.

Tell everyone what he did.


Wait.


Problem solved. And a lot cheaper than public executuon.

12-24-2001, 01:12 PM
I too think that civil liberties are incredibly precious, and we shouldn't model our country after repressive regimes. But self-defense is another matter. Terrorists should be killed since they represent an ongoing danger as long as they live, and their creed and mindset is such that their primary goal is to kill us and others in the free world. To whatever extent possible, address and work towards solutions to some of the problems that might breed terrorism such as the Palestinian issue, but in the meantime, eliminate terrorists because terrorism is intolerable, and because we must act in self-defense.

12-24-2001, 01:16 PM
Either that or a quick military tribunal and summary execution by firing squad. After all, there were plenty of witnesses and if the shoes do indeed contain wired C-4 he is undeniably guilty and indisputably dangerous.

12-24-2001, 03:11 PM
"..this is assuming we are still in existence."


Crawl out of your bomb shelter and greet the living. Things aren't anywhere near as bad as you've been conned into believing.

12-24-2001, 03:59 PM
You are correct that things aren't all that bad and we must go on living. To succumb to paralysis would give terrorists a victory in that regard. Also, in many ways, our country is indeed courageous.


We must also remain highly vigilant and take all necessary actions, or things very well could get all that bad and even worse. What would the world be like if Washington, New York City, L.A., Rome, Paris, Bonn, London and a half-dozen or more major cities are destroyed and become uninhabitable for generations yet to come. That is what WILL happen if we allow terrorists to have their way. So let's keep on living, and meld living our lives with combating what may be a foreshadowing of the greatest threat mankind will have ever faced. Make no mistake, as the technologies of mass destruction become increasingly available over the next few decades, the potential for disgruntled madmen or religious fanatics to inflict massive harm on everyone else will only increase. The implications are staggering when even roughly extrapolated. We face a tremendous challenge, and even with all our efforts there is no guarantee that we will succeed.

12-24-2001, 05:27 PM
food for thought: clinton pardoned the puerto rican terrorists who *killed* a lot of people with bombs.


brad

12-24-2001, 06:58 PM
....I am for civil liberties 100%, but when an individual makes a declaration, a statement of terror to innocent men, women, and children flying in an airplane, that individual has forfeited all civil liberties IMO. Part of the reason we are such targets is BECAUSE we are so understanding of these types of assholes. Whne someone declares hatred for your family and mine, be it terrorism or whatever, they should be summarily executed and not be able to hide behind some horseshit offense like interfering with the flight crew's ability to do their job and only get 20 years

12-24-2001, 07:35 PM
....while I would never want to live in an oppressive society, do you ever stop and wonder why no one tries this kind of shit with a red china, a Korea, etc? Its BECAUSE they are intolerant. Somehow, we need to toughen up on some obviously outdated penalties for what was clearly an act of terrorism against our people. The fact that it was unsuccessful shouldn't mean the terrorist gets a slap on the wrist. In this instance, we SHOULD look a some of the more intolerable cultures that inhibat our planet.

12-25-2001, 12:25 AM
Well, actually I happened to make a similar observation on this forum a while back, with respect to the fact that the former Soviet Union never seemed to be a terrorist target either. Of course there were other factors at work too, but I do think it counted for something at least that any potential attackers knew that it would probably be biggest mistake they and their country would ever make if they tried that kind of BS with Brezhnev or Andropov.


I really don't much care for the idea of intolerance in law enforcement or in the judicial system or in international relations...I generally find it rather repugnant. But when it comes to terrorists and terrorism we are talking self-defense and it should be treated as such. In other words terrorism should be a capital offense, and terrorist organizations should be utterly dismantled, and committed terrorists eliminated. Leaving these nuts alive to attack us again is preposterous IMO. I'm all for live and let live but when people are trying to kill us I say kill them first. It's sad but at least that part of it doesn't have to be overly complicated.

12-25-2001, 10:25 PM
part of the problem with eliminating these kooks is that to do it effectively you must have the general population give up alot of their previously hard won liberties. not all of us trust the govt. with returning anything after the taking.

12-26-2001, 02:17 AM
I believe that this should be a major concern. Hard-won civil liberties should not be discarded lightly if at all. I am also mostly talking about non-US nationals. And I don't mean kill everyone overseas who just shouts anti-US slogans and goes to radical meetings. I'm talking about those who are actively involved in organizations which are practicing terroristic attacks, or those who have committed a deadly terrorist act or have attempted such an act (for example Richard Reid, the guy who tried to light plastic explosives in his shoes on the plane). When it comes to attacking al Qaeda overseas, for instance, I don't think our primary concerns should be about their rights. Maybe I should have been more specific in my post. I do think that certain other organizations should be gone after with the same zeal with which we are pursuing al Qaeda.

12-26-2001, 03:27 AM
We are getting farther away in time from World War II and are also some 10 years away from the Cold War - which is both good and bad. The good part is obvious and grand, but the bad part is that we are forgetting what was essentially the ultimate lesson of the 20th Century: Namely, that utopian and apocalyptic objectives are self-defeating and bring on colossal misery.


If people, like our resident fundamendalist here and other extremists masquerading as patriots, want to live in "perfect safety & happiness", then a reminder about The Workers' Paradise or the German 1000-Year Reich seem more appropriate than ever. Anyone who still argues for "quick fixes", such as summary executions or other allegedly "draconian measures" should be the object of ridicule and scorn more than anything. We tend to forget that liberty is the core value for democratic society - and chipping away at it should be an exercise best undertaken with extreme prejudice. We have become mostly cavalier with it, ignoring that liberty is a very frail animal!


Third Reich, A New History by Michael Burleigh, a fresh account of what went down in more "interesting times", concludes as follows :


...In an actuarial sense, we have become more "risk-averse". There are no "quick-fix" leaps to happiness, even assuming that that is a desirable objective [The author rightly views even happiness as a suspect motive!] , judging by the devastating human consequences of such enterprises in the 20th century. The historical balance sheet endorses this judgment.

...

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.


And how about the old movie Judgement at Nuremberg ? It was about the war crimes trial of German judges who had sent German men and women deemed "inferior", such as German Jews, to sterilising clinics or euthanasia (a practice not uncommon among western democracies as the public defender points out in the film). The most prominent German judge among them, played by Burt Lancaster, tries to obtain a word of absolution and privately presents his side to the chief American judge presiding, Spencer Tracy's character : "We did not cause the Nazi horror, the Holocaust. I did not know it would come to that!"


Judge Dan Haywood's response: "It came to that when you first sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."

12-26-2001, 08:48 AM
agree 100%.


p.s. planned parenthood started out (in the 1920's or thereabout) as a eugenics movement. they had a lot of people forcibly sterilized.


brad

12-26-2001, 11:29 AM
Cyrus,


The Jews were not terrorists. They did not have the avowed goals, backed up by actions, of killing all the rest of Germany and Europe. Terrorists on the other hand, do have such goals and would be delighted to kill you, me, and anyone else in the Western world they can. And many of them are backing up their beliefs and goals with actions.


I'm afraid you might not realize this is war. Just because the other side is not of just one country or not backed by a single government does not change that fact. It might change a few things legally and diplomatically, but it doesn't change the essence of it. In wartime you really can't have a full trial replete with high-powered defense attorneys, a 4-year media circus, and so forth, for every enemy soldier or saboteur.


Take the case of Richard Reid. There is no question that he is guilty of attempting to bring down that plane and kill everyone aboard, and now even Afghan prisoners are identifying him as having been trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Besides his obvious guilt, such fanatics are generally permanently committed to their beliefs and represent a clear and present danger as long as they live. I think he should face a military tribunal. There are plenty of witnesses. Upon conviction he should be summarily executed by firing squad. This isn't that complicated and it isn't a question of denying him his rights. He is an ememy soldier for crying out loud, caught in the act of attempting to kill many innocent Americans, and there is no question as to this being the case. He damn sure should be shot. Do you really think otherwise?

12-26-2001, 12:39 PM
It took two days to get back to this, I had a housefull of company. I agree with you on a personal level. I'd execute the guy myself if I could. The government however, is on a slippery slope, and has to be ever mindful of its limits. As someone pointed out above, they are not going to be quick about giving back powers that they give themselves.


I recently read a piece regarding John Walker, the goofball they found in the Taliban army. I saw no reason not to execute him as a traitor. A constitutional law professor was making the point that the framers of the constitution intentionally made it extremely difficult to convict a person as a traitor. These guys came from a society where anyone with a dissenting opinion was judged a traitor, and summarily executed. The consititution is a remarkable document, and was written by a group who had fought off tyrany. They had definite intentions that it not happen again.

12-26-2001, 01:15 PM
OK that is a valid point, but let's consider that not only does Richard Reid have a terroristic attitude (or "dissenting opinion" if you prefer), he also was trying to kill a plane full of innocent civilians. He should be executed not so much for his views but for his actions and the fact that is it reasonable to assume that he will remain a potential deadly threat as long as he remains alive.

12-26-2001, 02:18 PM
i have no use for him either, but you may be expanding penalties. we tend to punish for what was actually done rather than what was intended. should we change that. should attempted murder carry the same penalty as if you were able to accomplish your goal. or if you steal something of no value should the penalty be the same as if you stole something of high value. things to ponder.

12-26-2001, 02:38 PM
I too thought of that important distinction. I don't think expanding penalties is generally a good thing, but when dealing with attempted mass murder, and given the current climate of fanatical terrorism, I think in such cases penalties could reasonably be expanded if for no other reason than to protect the public. I'm really not concerned so much with punishment as with safeguarding the rest of us. Whether we are dealing with terrorist mass murderers or terrorists who have attempted mass murder, they probably present about an equivalent future risk.


Also, and this is only distantly related to the above argument, these attempted suicide bombers are obviously willing, perhaps even eager, to die. Since while living they clearly pose a risk to everyone else, why should we not speed them along on this journey which they are ready to make anyway?

12-26-2001, 03:19 PM
I'm sorry, but you should perhaps read my post again, because it appears you have not understood much.


"He damn sure should be shot. Do you really think otherwise?"


If I was on that plane, I would most definitely use any means necessary to render him harmless - even if that meant shooting him on the spot. But NOW, that he's neutralized and arrested, I do not support extending the law of the jungle (i.e. what I said should happen on the plane) to society. I leave that to supporters of totalitarianism, as wussy as that make me sound.


Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the difference.


"I think [Richard Reid] should face a military tribunal. There are plenty of witnesses. Upon conviction he should be summarily executed by firing squad."


Why not skip the tribunal? Go directly to the firing squad.


--Cyrus

12-26-2001, 03:48 PM
Cyrus, I do understand the difference. However you may not understand that these deadly lunatics can never be "neutralized" until they are dead. Look at all the al Qaeda that escaped in Afghanistan. Look at the murders and atrocities that go on in our prisons. If someone is COMMITTED to kill you and other innocent civilians, and they did try once but just happened to fail, and they WILL try again given the chance, do you think they should merely be locked up?


The only reasons the tribunal should be necessary are to ascertain that Richard Reid is indeed the person who tried to murder everyone on that plane, and to be certain that he did in fact possess the necessary explosives in his shoes, and that he did indeed try to ignite them.


I don't think killing Richard Reid has anything to do with totalitarianism. Killing someone who is himself eager to die and who has shown he will try to take as many with him as he can in the process is simply acting pragmatically. I mean come on. The guy was in the process of killing himself as well at the time. Why give him another chance to kill others in his next suicide attempt. IMO that is simply ludicrous. You are valuing his life more than he values it himself, and you are also valuing his life more than the lives of others he may yet manage to take. Well-intentioned on your part but preposterous IMO. His life has a significantly negative net value and I don't think that this is just a matter of perspective. Terrorists, and serial murderers, should be killed.

12-26-2001, 03:50 PM
Besides, many of these suicide bombers truly believe there will be 88 virgins waiting for them in Paradise. We'd be doing him a favor for chrissake.

12-26-2001, 06:52 PM
....nice point re: the fathers of our Constitution, however, I fail to see how any clear-thinking individual could not see Richard Reid as simply having a dissenting opinion. I have no argument with anyone on that point - that differences of opinion should be punishable by death. OTOH, this terrorist INTENTIONALLY TOOK ACTION. An action seeking to maim and kill innocent people. Again, that the action didn't achieve it's intended goal is IMO irrelevent.


I would further argue that the fathers of our Constitution sought to protect the masses, and were consistent in this regard. Terrorists, seeking to do nothing more than kill the masses for whatever ideological or religious ideals that motivate them, are the antithesis to the spirit of how our forefathers framed our Constitution. There is no middle ground here IMO.


If this is not an act punishable by death, I repeat, we are gutless. "Intefering with a flight crew's ability to function?" or some such horseshit? If this is the best we can do as we are besieged by the Richard Reid's of the world, we are ridiculously politically-correct society, on a fast track to oblivion. God help our children.

12-26-2001, 06:59 PM
...."We tend to forget that liberty is the core value for democratic society" - what liberties do YOU, Cyrus say, should be extended to Richard Reid? Maybe he was having a 'Bad Fuse Day' and we should just let him slide - ehh Cyrus??


Only a pompous, arrogant, pathetic human being - clearly an anti-american terrorist-loving IMO - could try to tie a terrorist's actions into statements about "Draconian measures" You have hit a new low Cyrus. Please, move back to the caves at Tora Bora and go away

12-26-2001, 07:58 PM
With his actions, Richard Reid tried to bring the "jungle" to us, based on his own warped views.


I submit that with his attempted deadly attack, intended mass murder, he gave tacit permission for us to respond in kind. Since we have to protect ourselves not only from him but from many others like him, I suggest that those who attack us like animals should meet with commensurate defense, namely swift deadly force. In this regard, the more Draconian the better, as long as we safeguard the rights of innocent people in the process. Indeed I think that quite possibly terrorists should be disposed of as in Medieval times. Hang bin Laden and all his captured leaders on a giant crane for 7 days overlooking ground zero and let the crows peck at then. Rack, draw and quarter Richard Reid. Send a message to other terrorists that if they attack our innocent civilians they will not have a pleasant journey on their way to paradise.


Yes, I am serious, I'm just not yet 100% convinced that this is a good idea. But it might be. Attacks targeting large groups of innocent civilians must not be tolerated. And if they target OUR innocent civilians, perhaps they should die a thousand deaths.


If they don't like it, they don't have to attack us. It doesn't have to be all that complicated. And whatever they say, just tell them "If you don't like it, then don't attack us." It's not really all that hard a concept to grasp.


Finally, your idea that arresting them neutralizes them is ludicrous. Look at what happened at Mazar-e-Sharif in the prison uprising. If they want to take the law of the jungle to us then give it to them.

12-26-2001, 09:15 PM
'Rack, draw and quarter Richard Reid. ...

Yes, I am serious, '


as far as i know, the first completely 'anti-american' statement i have (possibly) ever heard.


brad

12-27-2001, 01:47 AM
First, you took that out of context. Second, it is in no way an "anti-American" statement.


Let's put it this way, too. Richard Reid's ACTIONS are MORE of an ANTI-AMERICAN STATEMENT than anything you have ever heard, or probably will ever hear, on this forum. That is, unless you don't think that actions count as statements, too. I happen to think they do.

12-27-2001, 02:21 AM
seriously advocating cruel and unusual punishment is being anti american.


terrorists should be given a swift (jury) trial, and then (humanely) executed.


brad

12-27-2001, 03:05 AM
Well I am not sure and that is the point of my jungle post. I used to think as you do, after I got used to the idea of capital punishment for the very worst crimes such as mass murders or serial murders (and now terrorism murders), but the problem is that these guys long for death. It's part of their lunatic interpretation of Islam. So I don't see it as a deterrent to them AT ALL, and I do think we need some kind of a deterrent for these nuts, who wish to blow themselves up along with as many Americans as they can manage to take with them. So would torture before death be a deterrent to some of them? I don't know. It might be.

12-27-2001, 03:50 AM
We are most definitely out of the jungle - no matter how much the 'jungle' is dear to persons like Osama bin Laden in their desire to cause wholesale mayhem or to 'well-meaning' patriots (pseudo-patriots actually), like the resident lunatic of this thread.


You do not know enough about the jungle to talk about it as easily and casually as you do. And I'm not talking about a war-like situtation either. Only when you have lived under a dictatorship, even a dictatorship that's meant to defend 'your' interests, you can know and feel what the 'jungle' is.


I think that it is actually easier to behave like a jungle animal than behave like a civilised person. I think that the United States of America stands head and shoulders above all other countries, including western democracies, and despite their own grotesque misdeeds, in the protection of individual freedoms. I think that the whole world will lose out if the U.S. starts behaving like Iraq ("military tribunals") or India ("firing squads") or even the United Kingdom (no habeas corpus for suspects). The U.S. are fighting for more than the defeat of a bunch of cult lunatics - that's the easy part: The tough part is how not to lose your soul. Something that most Americans, according to the polls, are all to willing to lose, believing that your soul is something that can be pawned and bought back at will.


So I think the title of Wogga's post atop this thread has it completely wrong. The title should actually be "Our Unbelievably Courageous Country" - but I see someone else already beat me to it.


--Cyrus

12-27-2001, 05:03 AM
I agree with much you say in this post, Cyrus.


I'm just not so sure that foreigners who see fit to attack us in deadly terroristic acts should receiver ANY rights or protection. I'm not talking about stripping Americans of our rights; I'm saying that foreigners who target our innocents for death and terror should probably lose their rights then and there. If they want to play by Medieval rules...hey, they're the ones who decided to attack us in the first place. I say defend ourselves against these attacks, period, and don't be nice or reasonable about it. Make it as painful as possible for them since they don't fear death. In other words I am coming closer to the conclusion that we should probably meet their aggression with utterly ruthless defense. After all they can stop attacking us anytime they goddam decide to.


It's also a mistake to think that we can easily defeat these cults of lunatics. Part of the problem is that the capacity for small groups or individuals to wage destruction is immense. I just read that the estimated cost of 9/11 is 100-300 BILLION dollars. Say it's 275 billion dollars--that equals an average cost of $1,000 to every man, woman and child in the USA. And it only cost al Qaeda $500,000 to do it. We could actually go broke fighting this war. I say keep eliminating the bastards ASAP until the rest stop attacking us. If they want to keep attacking us, keep killing them. Hunt them down and kill them too, don't imprison them. When they stop attacking us we'l stop hunting and killing them. Europe should go into hunter-killer mode too around the world; they've been the lackadaisical recipients of terrorist attacks for decades now.

12-27-2001, 04:25 PM
"I say keep eliminating the bastards ASAP until the rest stop attacking us. If they want to keep attacking us, keep killing them. Hunt them down and kill them too, don't imprison them.

When they stop attacking us we'l stop hunting and killing them."


Where & when will the next Mohammed Atta come at you ?


Do you know ?? In order to "keep killing him" as you say? Because the al Qaeda and their Taliban brethren are/were a "regular" army, fighting out in the "open", relatively speaking. And don't for a second believe that this "Richard Reid" clown was typical of what's ahead.


Do you seriously think that eliminating the Taliban the way the U.S. has set out to do will eliminate the danger of terrorism? Or, especially, the breeding grounds for terror ? Humbly methinks this thread of thought is thoroughly mithtaken.


--Cyrus


Footnote : A latest estimate published in Chicago, Ill., puts the number of the estimated innocent civilians who have so far died as a result of the operations in Afghanistan , to be a little higher than the number of all the people who perished in the September 11 attacks - who, of course, were all innocent. ...For what it's worth.

12-27-2001, 05:39 PM
No, it's only a partial solution. The long-term solution requires addressing the underlying causes of terrorism...the Palestinian issue, the teaching of virulent anti-Western fundamentalism in Arab public schools, and some other issues. We need to address those issues but in the meantime we need to eliminatew those who are active terrorists to the extent that we can. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to appease all the terrorists and lunatic fundamentalists who don't just want a Palestinian solution; many want complete destruction of Western society and a worldwide reign of Islamic fundamentalism. So I say work towards a solution and in the meantime make it crystal clear that deadly attacks terroristic attacks on the West will be dealt with by seeking to eliminate those responsible and involved in such attacks.


Again, the underlying causes of terrorism are complex, but the principle of self-defense doesn't have to be, and for the immediate, self-defense must take priority. Yes I think active terrorists should be rooted out and killed unless we see a huge decline soon in the amount of terrorism worldwide.


So work towards a long-term solution, but in the short-term, meet deadly force with deadly force and seek to eliminate those who are attacking us. After all, they don't have to attack us. If they can't understand that and they persist, then let's kill them before they kill themselves and us as well in the process. It's not that hard a concept--aggression, especially aggression targeted against civilians, will be crushed. Don't like it then don't attack us. Still attack us? then die.