Subject | Re: Clobberin' Time... |
From | Cryofax |
Date | 09/18/2001 18:16 (09/18/2001 09:16) |
Message-ID | <423506ec.0109180816.79dc1736@posting.google.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc |
Follows | Celaeno |
Followups | Oliver J. Hanau (2h & 31m) > Cryofax Celaeno (1d, 5h & 46m) > Cryofax |
If a country harbored known terrorists, then they knew that further terrorists acts originating from within their own borders was possible. That they didn't expel or arrest the terrorists means they approve of and support such activity. If the terrorists were hiding in a country unbeknowst to the country's government then that's a different situation entirely. Currently the thinking is that the Taliban knew of, harbored, and approved of Bin Laden's activities. But we need to be darn sure before we go bombing Kabul.CryofaxCelaeno
If a country aided and harbored the terrorists that did this, that's already an act of war and they deserve what they get.
Yes. But do you really believe some government somewhere knew and supported the hijacking of 4 airplanes used to murder thousands? Do you believe a whole nation or even just a whole city knew and cheered them on?
You can't seperate the civilians from the rest of the country. They live there, they're part of the country. If that country commits an act of war we are at war with that entire country. And stop with the "you're no better than the terrorists" crap. We will go out of our way not to harm civilians, we are striking back against an attack, and giving plenty of warning. I'm not saying we just carpet bomb civilians, but I am saying in war some are going to bite it but they're part of that country. We can't tie our hands behind our backs.CryofaxCelaeno
If we're punishing a country that aided the terrorists, we'll likely let them have some warning before we level a city (we have in the past). We can do this because there will be nothing they can do to stop it. This was not the case with Japan.
Ok, so when has the US given warning about destroying a city? And IF there is a government stupid enough to have knowingly harbored the people behind this, do you really think destroying the livelihoods of civilians is justified? Do that and you're no better than the hijackers, so knock it off with the selfrighteousness.
Nobody wants to make it worse. But then sometimes things get worse before they get better...CryofaxCelaeno
On the other hand if we're bombing an area to erradicate terrorists then it would be stupid to give any warning obviously.
I'm all for hitting the terrorists, and hitting them HARD. But, you don't have to use bombs to do that. Find them, wipe them out, bring them to justice, but try not to make a horrid situation even worse.
As a blanket general rule? Yes. Sometimes people need to be killed.CelaenoHopefully, everyone but the hapless JWK will be able to understand what I'm trying to say here :)Cryofax
Sounds like you're saying killing people is bad.
And you disagree with that?
In this case, I'm saying killing the right people might be good, killing the wrong people is (as always) bad.Of course nobody wants to kill the "wrong" people. But if we take out all the terrorists, but unintentionally kill some civilians (not thousands, but let's say a few hundred) in the country does that mean the operation was a failure?
We haven't thus far. We could have nuked Afghanistan by now if we wanted to.CryofaxCelaeno
Rather than simply decry violence in the world, I'd like to hear your suggestions for dealing with the current situation with some detail...
Not act rashly.
Just look at what's happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now because of the actions of one VERY thoughtless group of fanatics.The Taliban have declared a "holy war" on the U.S. now, so I guess we got our "real war"? U.S. vs Afghanistan? Who the hell would have imagined that in their wildest dreams a decade or two ago!